Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

The hunt is On.
Sponsored by
The hunt is On.
Can you track down Scotland's wildest beastie?
 
 
Thursday, 4th December 2008 Change Date

The Scotsman Digital Archive - Special Christmas Offer

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

I'm right – you're wrong



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 21 August 2008
As a member of the older, better educated generation, I had no great difficulty obtaining 100 per cent in your history quiz (18 August), but I did hesitate at Question 6: "Which two kingdoms were merged in the Act of Union of 1707?"
I always understood the kingdoms of Scotland and England were united in 1603, when James I of Scotland was also crowned James VI of England. In 1707, it was not the "crowns" but the "parliaments" of Scotland and England that "merged" under the Act of Union to form the first parliament of Great Britain at Westminster. I gave the answer that was obviously required for a "correct" mark – even though it was wrong.

WILLIAM OXENHAM

Easter Currie Place

Edinburgh



The full article contains 126 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 20 August 2008 9:32 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Colin Wilson,

Aberdeen 21/08/2008 06:36:36
Constitutionally nothing aappened in 1603. There were still two kingdoms and two crowns, with the same king for both.

The two kingdoms were united by the Treaty of Union in 1707. The new United Kingdom was then governed by a new parliament, separate from the two pre-union parliaments which have been in permanent adjournment ever since. (Today's Scottish Parliament is a different institution again.)

The Union of the Crowns was in 1707. There was never a union of the parliaments.
2

Boy Wonder,

21/08/2008 07:45:03
Whatever the hell it was ... most Scots were against it! It was our greedy and treacherous "Lords and Masters" who made it happen!
3

wayne bijlyeerheid,

21/08/2008 07:56:47
No the kingdoms were not united in 1603, neither the Scots nor the English wanted it.
This led to things like, when the Borders fighting men and their families were uprooted by James VI of Scotland, and planted in Ulster,they were required to swear allegiance to James I of England and Ireland.

4

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 21/08/2008 08:36:57
I believe Henry Ford was correct when he stated:
"History is (more or less) bunk!"
5

Linda,

Edinburgh 21/08/2008 09:42:48
Vast majority of Scots didn't want Union of 1707 either.
6

Upbeat,

21/08/2008 09:51:06
6 Linda,

Do please say this again and again if it makes you happy. There remains not the smallest basis for assessing whether it was ever true, then, or has become so, since.
7

bill-alba,

fife 21/08/2008 10:54:29
#7 I'll go along with linda...but please continue with your comments again and again if it makes you happy.
8

Amanda Huginkiss,

21/08/2008 11:21:03
3 Kingdoms were united under one absolute monarch in 1603. England , Scotland and Ireland under James V1 of Scots.
Immediately prior to 1707 Scotland was in a parlous state. Bankrupt due to the Darien fiasco. Starving due to disastrous harvests, and the population reduced by a half.
Only union with England and Ireland saved the Scots from further misery.
It took nearly 20 years for all the benefits to become obviously apparent to all. Much the same timescale as the UK's union within the EU.
6# Just because a few rioted in the streets of Glasgow and Edinburgh for a few days shouldn't be interpretated as "the vast majority".
This was a common practice in both towns on a regular basis. Sometimes with a purpose. Sometimes not.
9

Upbeat,

21/08/2008 11:28:07
8 Bill-Alba,

Enjoy your 'wander through the mists of time ' with Linda, if it makes you happy.

The point I made concerned the complete lack of definite evidence - itemised in her post - to show why what she wished was true was actually the case, way back in 1707 or even today .

Do you , perhaps, have a way of helping her to create or even produce substantial evidence. ?
10

TTTC,

21/08/2008 12:53:55
The letter-writer, being a stickler for accuracy, might care to note that the Union of the Crowns involved James VI of Scotland and James I of England, rather than the other way round...
11

Spoot,

Third rock pool on the left 21/08/2008 21:16:25
#9

Factually inaccurate as ever. The kingdoms of England and Scotland were not united until 1707 (which is why specific provisions in the Act of Union were required to achieve this) - what happened in the interim was that the same individual held both crowns.

There's a lot more to the Darien episode and thirty years of restrictions on Scotland's trade in the run-up to the 1707 union than your analysis contemplates. Before you compound the inaccuracies by mentioning the payment of sums to repair Scotland's finances or by way of bribes to prominent individuals, it is a matter of record that the Equivalent was paid to set the books straight in the light of Scotland's assuming part of England's national debt - hence the name Equivalent.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.