The Scots and the Union: Then and Now

by Christopher A. Whatley

An updated edition on the 1707 Union between Scotland and England in a modern context The Scots and the Then and Now is a refreshed, revised and extended edition of The Scots and the Union , which appeared in 2006. It was acclaimed then as a path-breaking, game-changing account of the making of the United Kingdom, and the Scots’ part in this. Winner of the Saltire Society’s prestigious Scottish History Book of the Year prize, it successfully challenged accounts of the process that alleged that the union was brought about by English bullying and the venality of Scottish politicians ‘bought and sold for English gold’. This new edition not only provides readers with an essential explanation of why and how Scotland became part of the United Kingdom, but brings the historical debate into a vigorous present with an additional section. An explanation is provided as to why the union is less strong in 2014 than it was in the 1950s and also why, in comparison with citizens in some other smaller European nations which have become independent states in recent times, large numbers of Scots seem reluctant to see the end of Britain. This new edition is the key background text for anyone wishing to explore how we got to the position where we are once again debating union issues and opinions, lending historical weight and context to the arguments for and against union. Key

480 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2014

About the author

Christopher Allan Whatley FRHistS, FRSE is a well-known and widely published Scottish historian. He has been Professor of Scottish History at the University of Dundee since 1997.

Reviews

[Sabrina · Rating 4 out of 5]

It spent a lot of ink challenging the stereotype that the Union was an act of treason or lacking popular support. It was well written (clear), plenty of historiography involved, and overall a great read, especially for historians and not just politicos or activists

[Michael Rettig · Rating 3 out of 5]

I agree with his thesis and think that this is an important book in dispelling a lot of the myths surrounding the nationalists narrative of the Union. However, the book was poorly written and structured which made it very hard to get through. Awkward sentence structures and run on sentences were just a part of the problem. I think that it was worth reading but it was kind of a chore.