If you are still thinking 'what has something which happened centuries after the death of Sir William Wallace got to do with the truth behind the man?' - you would be right. Of course it has nothing to do with the man himself, but it does have a lot to do with what Sir William Wallace fought and died for.
Scotland's past is stained with the blood of thousands of her people who fought and died to keep Scotland free - none more than Sir William Wallace. Queen Anne, with one stroke of her hand, committed, to what Scottish nationalists saw as, the supreme betrayal. Making the deaths of thousands of Scots fade into history as pointless sacrifice.
Relations between the English and the Scots throughout the 1600's had been poor to say the least - During the 1650's Scots had been subject to Cromwell - Hostility continued through the reign of Charles II and James VII - The agreement made with William II in 1689 gave Scotland even greater independence than it had during the times of James VII - The breach was widened even further after the massacre at Glencoe - and by the time Queen Anne came along, Scotland was still fighting against English occupation, a fight which had been ever present since long before Sir William Wallace was born.
The making of a United Kingdom had been 'on the table' for decades, it had been proposed in 1606, 1667, 1670 and in 1689 (and even as far back as Edward I's proposed marriage with his 6 year old son and the 3 year old 'Maid of Norway' when she became queen of Scotland) and each time it was mentioned, fear and racism reared its head and communication not only ceased but also lead to battle. The English argument was, "Whoever married a beggar could only expect a louse for a portion", in other words the only benefit in a united kingdom was in Scotlands favour. The Scots argument was that Scotland would become a region or annex of England and their more wealthy, more populous and more powerful neighbours would "Swallow up the nation" just as they had with the Welsh in the 13th century and were still trying to do in Ireland.
The first change of attitude came from the English. They found themselves, yet again, at war with France. King Louis XIV recognised the Catholic James VIII as the rightful heir to both the crowns of England and Scotland. Highlanders in particular also recognised this claim on Scotland's Crown and many in England, Ireland and Scotland sympathised and supported the Jacobite cause.
It is regarded by historians of the time, and of now, that should the Jacobites, namely James VIII (son of the exiled James VII) have landed in Scotland to restore the exiled House of Stuart claim in 1702 instead of later, he (James VIII) may well have been accepted instead of Anne - and the whole history of Scotland, and the situation now, would have been completely different. As it was, the 14 year old pretender, blessed with as hopeless a sense of timing as his father, did nothing.
Anne had been imposed on the Scots by the English and the 1707 Act of Union was the inevitable child of this forced marriage. Therefore Jacobitism became intertwined with Scottish nationalism.
Some complications followed (which we wont get into to save space on this page), regarding what might happen should Anne fail to produce an heir - her failure to produce children who lived for any great length of time drew attention to this concern. Scotland wished to pass the Act of Security 1702, which would allow Scottish parliament to choose an heir should Anne have no successor. This would mean that Scotland could possibly name a Scot and once more have an independent monarchy. Englands greatest fear was not so much an independent Scotland, but more that the 'Auld Alliance' between Scotland and France (something which had been around since before Wallace's time and came to and end on the death of Alexander III), could be rekindled should the throne pass to someone like James Stuart, and the Act of Security would make this a likely scenario.
The threat of Jacobite invasion and civil war at a time when England was vulnerable due to the war of Spanish Succession which they were also fighting, was something which, as far as the English were concerned, must never happen. England relied on having Scottish soldiers in its front line against the Spanish and having them suddenly turn and join ranks with the French would easily turn the balance of power against them (indeed there was a Spanish-Jacobite rebellion in later years which was aborted).
Anne was Scotlands queen and when she failed to sign the Act of Security, parliament withheld supplies until she gave in and signed. Within 2 years (1704) of signing, Scotland was forging its way ahead, politically, to becoming a free nation with complete independence from England, whilst maintaining business and commercial ties. Meanwhile Anne and her English government were still trying to bind the two nations together as one.
Scotland held the upper hand at this point, and failed to take it. The usual internal disputes between the Scots allowed the English to rethink its plans and force the Alien Act of February 1705. This forced the Scots into a decision, that by Christmas day they had to choose the House of Hanover (which is who the English wanted to succeed Anne), or renegotiate the union policy. If they failed to choose either then England would treat all Scots as aliens, all trade would be destroyed and any claims of land that Scots held within England would be reclaimed. If this were to happen it would prove disastrous on Scotlands commerce. There was no way that rejuvenated connections with France were of more value than English business.
At the same time England made her money freely available to Scottish MP's if they supported the union - In the words of Robert Burns when reflecting on Scotlands countrymen, they were: "bought and sold for English gold".
In a poorly attended Scottish parliament, a vote was taken to agree on the commissioners who would discuss and negotiate the union proposal. By April 1706 discussions began, and by July were finalised with little complication. The terms of the union were published and were greeted with roars of distrust and protest, but by then it was too late and on January 16th 1707 Scotland had in effect voted itself out of existence by accepting 1. The English ultimatum, 2. Queen Anne herself and 3. The money?
Chancellor Seafield is observed to have stated at the time: "Now there's an end of an old song!"
The Scottish parliament was dissolved by the last Scottish monarch on 28th April 1707. By the terms of the Act of Union England and Scotland became, in sense, one country. Anne became the first Queen of Great Britain with the succession going over to the House of Hanover on her death - exactly what the English wanted.
There was full economic union, the Scots were granted 45 seats in the House of Commons and 16 peers in the upper house. This was not a fair reflection of the population difference between the two countries or on the contribution toward the now combined revenue. There was a compensation of 398,085 pounds and 10 shillings (English value) for agreeing to share responsibility for England's national debt. The money was intended to compensate those who had lost out? due to the Act, but it was little more than a bribe paid.
Why did Scotland accept such a heavily biased deal when it had been fighting so hard for independence for years? What with the speculative 'national bribe' of considerable but short term value - personal guarantee to those in power (more bribes) - the threat of loss of trade and business - and add to that the fact that it did bring political stability to a divided Highland vs Lowland country - it was a situation where they had everything to loose and little to gain. The English had shown tactics which they had used on the battle field many many times - divide and conquer. The churches and laws of Scotland would not be touched by the act, and this one favour with the religious sections within Scotland - "at least they would be safe".
The English gained in strength in the European arena, and success in battle throughout made Great Britain - under English majority decision in parliament - indeed a 'Great' kingdom.
Once the union was signed there was no way out and indeed in 1713 the issue of separate nations was raised but when put to the vote was outnumbered by the English votes, which were greater than the total number of Scottish votes in the House of Commons. So long as English MP's wanted the union the handful of Scottish votes could never break the deal. The only alternative to political debate was violence and civil war, and by that time - in what was considered modern times - the wielding of the Claymore was not an alternative. Matters could, surely, be worked out politically.
The debate for Scottish independence is still a political 'hot potato' even today, and with a general election to take place either this year 1996 or next year 1997, the Scottish issue is yet again raised.
We shall wait and see what happens. In 1707 an 'auld song' did indeed end, but riots in Glasgow in 1724 and again in Edinburgh in 1736 clearly showed that many new songs were being sung, and none of them were ballads.
King Edward 'Longshanks' Plantagenet I of England had defeated Sir William Wallace, but his worst fear had indeed happened - he gave Scotland the hero/martyr that would spur generations after words. Little would Longshanks now that in the 1990's - Wallace - the BRAVEHEART would stimulate the imaginations and passions of the World.
© 1994/98 Highlander Web Magazine