Independence or Union: Scotland's Past and Scotland's Present

by T.M. Devine

There can be no relationship in Europe's history more creative, significant, vexed and uneasy than that between Scotland and England. From the Middle Ages onwards the island of Britain has been shaped by the unique dynamic between Edinburgh and London, exchanging inhabitants, monarchs, money and ideas, sometimes in a spirit of friendship and at others in a spirit of murderous dislike.Tom Devine's seminal new book explores this extraordinary history in all its ambiguity, from the seventeenth century to the present. When not undermining each other with invading armies, both Scotland and England have broadly benefitted from each other's presence - indeed for long periods of time nobody questioned the union which joined them. But as Devine makes clear, it has for the most part been a relationship based on consent, not force, on mutual advantage, rather than antagonism - and it has always held the possibility of a political parting of the ways.With the United Kingdom under a level of scrutiny unmatched since the eighteenth century Independence or Union is the essential guide.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Scotland, Politics

366 pages, Kindle Edition

First published May 24, 2016

About the author

Sir Thomas Martin Devine, Kt OBE FBA FRSE HonMRIA FRHistS FSA Scot, is a Scottish academic historian. Devine's main research interest is the history of the Scottish nation since c. 1600 and its global connections and impact. He is regarded as the leading authority on the history of modern Scotland.

He is the author or editor of some three dozen books and close to 100 articles on topics as diverse as emigration, famine, identity, Scottish transatlantic commercial links, urban history, the economic history of Scotland, Empire, the Scottish Highlands, the Irish in Scotland, sectarianism, stability and protest in the 18th century Lowlands, Scottish elites, the Anglo-Scottish Union, rural social history, Caribbean slavery and Scotland, the global impact of the Scottish people and comparative Irish and Scottish relationships. The Scottish Nation (1999) became an international best-seller, and for a short period even outsold in Scotland the adventures of Harry Potter when first published. In 2013 the volume was listed first in the '100 Best Books to Build a Better Scotland' compiled by ListMuse.com.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Devine

Reviews

[J.C. · Rating 5 out of 5]

How would I rate T M Devine at anything other than five stars? Apparently he’s been knighted for services to Scottish history, but when writing about him here it seems more appropriate just to call him T M Devine, or Tom Devine. He is so vastly above me in terms of knowledge and ability that he might as well inhabit another world, but there is absolutely no pretension about his writing, so that I had the bold feeling that if he were beside me we could chat freely. There is a recognition of the importance of individual thinking in his book that would have made him one of the foremost of the Enlightenment writers; there is a respect for different opinions that makes him someone we need to read, right now, with open minds and daring to remove ourselves from political hype, from the acquisition of power by manipulation, from all that stinks of corruption and bigotry in the circles of power as we know them. Without any descent into didacticism he requires us to stand up and be counted, now, when it counts for our nation, the nation of Scotland.
I felt from the opening of this book that his own view was towards what is called “devo-max” (devolution maximus, or full fiscal autonomy), but, if it had to be independence or union, which was the case, then he would be tempted towards independence. I’ve just looked up online whether he actually stated his own view anywhere (I told you I’m ignorant) and he decided in the fortnight before the Scottish Independence Referendum that he would vote “Yes”. He came to regard “devo-max” as “a sticking-plaster”. In his book, of course, he is not partial but is a consummate historian in every sense. He begins with “The Context of Union”:
“The Union of England and Scotland in 1707 was a marriage of convenience founded on pragmatism, expediency, competing national patriotisms and realpolitik. Love and friendship for the other were entirely notable by their absence during the negotiations”.
By and large this appears to have been the situation ever since. I’ve always been aware of this, having grown up in the Highlands, but Tom Devine helped me see the bigger picture. I would have assumed, for instance, that handing over the entire administration of Scotland in the eighteenth century to the Earl of Islay, a Campbell, a clan which was notorious at the time due to the part it played in the Jacobite Rebellion of 1745-6, would have been A Bad Thing, especially as Islay’s mission to “deliver political stability in Scotland” . . . . relied upon “ the lion’s share of patronage and the authority to govern north of the border.” In fact Scotland benefitted enormously from this arrangement economically and administratively, and “Scotland’s semi-independent status was assured”.
This was only the precursor to long-standing economic advantages delivered to Scotland in the context of Union. Tom Devine demonstrates that in the Independence Referendum in 2014 much of the victorious “No” vote came from older voters who were concerned about the future economy of an independent Scotland, anxieties which the Scottish National Party had failed to allay as they could not provide answers. With hindsight, the SNP muffed their chance. The author points out that the Labour party, in enabling a Scottish Assembly in 1995, committed political suicide in Scotland by paving the way for the SNP’s rise. He is careful, however, to analyse the kind of support given to the SNP, which was not all about independence but was partly about voting for a party that would keep Scotland’s interests high on the agenda of the Westminster Government and govern Scotland to the tune of a Scottish, not an English, voice. I found the chapter on “Britishness 1939-60” quite moving. Having been brought up in Wales as a child and Scotland from the age of twelve, I feel half Welsh, half-Scots, and I was educated during a period when there was a strong sense of national pride in having come through two world wars and defeated the evil of Hitler. The chapter ends:
“The 1950’s was a decade of considerable material satisfaction for the majority and a time of dominant Britishness that Scots seemed able to comfortably combine with their own sense of national identity.”
Towards the end of the book the author makes a strong case for this no longer being true, which appears to be linked to the demise of the Labour Party in Scotland.
“The transformation of old Labour to New Labour in the 1990’s did not appeal to the party’s traditional supporters in Scotland . . . Similar evidence covering the period 1997 to 2001 demonstrated declining support for the proposition that New Labour supported class and trade union interests, but rising agreement for the view that that it primarily looked after business interests” – and so on. Jack McConnell, then First Minister, fatally failed to separate Scottish Labour's voice from the policies of the New Labour leadership in London, which did not appeal to Scottish voters.
The last chapter analyses the attitude of David Cameron, then Prime Minister, immediately following the referendum. As far as my personal opinion goes (post-Europe referendum) Cameron messed up big-time in more ways than one and should have attempted to make amends rather than abandoning the UK to its fate and writing his memoirs. However, that’s all now, and this was pre-Europe Referendum. TM Devine simply quotes a journalist who, in the wake of the Independence Referendum, points out that Cameron’s “English Votes for English Laws” initiative (EVEL) was “taking refuge, for short-term party political gain, in crude and petty nationalism.” He also quotes the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, Paddy Ashdown, who accused David Cameron of “making one of the most irresponsible speeches ever made by a Prime Minister.” I have just discovered that he allegedly tried to enlist the Queen’s support for the Union by asking her to “raise an eyebrow”. Yet even this pales compared to what Tom Devine quotes from our current Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, then Mayor of London, who joked merrily about “Jockalypse” if Labour were ever to enter government with nationalist support. No wonder they’ve been keeping him in the cupboard during this current election campaign.
Thanks, Tom, I voted No last time but will vote Yes next time. Your book did it for me.

[Lachlan]

a great introductory account of the history of scotland in the united kingdom up until the 2014 referendum. it's rather short, and the first half felt somewhat rushed before the pace slowed down substantially to cover the late twentieth century onwards. a lot of attention was therefore given to devolution and the rise of the snp where i would've liked to learn more about the early period of union and jacobitism. what's great though is that it felt consciously balanced about such a politically charged history, although devine doesn't hide his actual opinion on independence either. since the book is ten years old, some of the concluding remarks felt dated, but it's not as if he could've anticipated brexit and all the shit that stirred.

[Gavin McGrath · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this work more balanced and nuanced than I anticipated. Devine is magisterial when it comes to Scottish history, in my opinion. Has this book changed my view, especially as I live now in Scotland and no longer in SE England? No. But it has provided an historical context or framework.

[James Mack · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well-written and lusciously detailed analysis of the Scotland-UK relationship over the last 400 years. Marred only by its publication date: it was written in the tail-end of 2015 and, therefore, wants somewhat for an analysis of recent developments (Brexit and the second independence referendum).

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

It’s often a mistake for academic historians to venture on to the thin ice of present day politics but Devine manages it without falling through. The book was written in 2015, after the independence referendum but before the UK vote to leave the European Union.
As ever the scholarship is meticulous and the writing lucid. If Sir Tam isn’t the next Historiographer Royal I’ll be very disappointed.

[Gallagher McKendrick · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book breaks down, what I find to be the injustices served to Scotland since the years preceding the acts of union, in easy to read and understandable parts. The book looks deeply at the immediate before and after of the acts of union, the Thatcher years and the effect they had on nationalism and finally the 2014 referendum. Devine does an incredible job at producing a largely impartial piece on such a decisive issue. I however find the facts themselves as a strong argument for independence. Specifically when discussing the Indy. Ref. it really puts on a magnifying glass on the lies and scaremongering used by the “No” camp. When discussing Thatcher it shows how much of an afterthought Scotland truly was at the time. Finally when breaking down the acts of union, it paints the picture of how skewed the union was from the get gone in Englands favour, how Scotland was taken advantage of after the disastrous Darien Scheme.

[Toby · Rating 3 out of 5]

Independence or Union wasn't quite the book that I was expecting. Rather than a forensic analysis of the pros and cons of Scottish independence, or an analysis of what the near future might hold, the book is essentially a history of the Union and the changing attitudes, especially political ones, that eventually led up to Devolution in 1998 and the Referendum in 2014. Given that Tom Devine is perhaps the most respected and well-known of Scottish historians, this is perhaps unsurprising, though the title of the book could have been a little different.

Independence or Union is comparatively short - 272 pages - and so a comprehensive history of the previous 300 years it is not. There are other books by Devine that together may provide this. The first half of the book takes the reader from 1707 to 1960 at a very brisk pace. The second half slows down to look at the previous 50 years of British politics and the extraordinary rise of the SNP to the point where, in a parliamentary system deliberately designed to prevent one party from dominating, the SNP after the 2011 election did just that, retaining as it turned out an absolute majority for the next ten years.

Devine lays his cards on the table in the preface. He voted Yes in 2014 although only because David Cameron refused to put the half-way house Devo-Max on the ballot paper. Although Devine does his best to adopt the historians' studious neutrality, the mask slips in the rather exhilarating chapters covering the 2014 referendum. The vicious right-wing press, Project Fear and the panicked wheeling and Dealing of the Government when it looked like the referendum might not be a cake-walk all contributed in the end to a larger-than-expected majority for No. This was to have seismic (and in my view utterly depressing) implications for the Brexit referendum two years later.

Independence of Union was written in 2015 when the Brexit referendum was on the horizon and the outcome by no means seemed certain. Nicola Sturgeon had already mooted the fact that an English vote for Brexit and a Scottish vote against could trigger the conditions for a fresh referendum. This did indeed happen (dramatically - 62% of Scots voted to remain as against 48% in the UK as a whole). In retrospect 2020-23 may have provided the best chance for Independence for many years to come. The absurd chaos of Conservative governments and the apparently calm way in which Nicola Sturgeon handled the Covid pandemic as against the lies and partying of Boris Johnson's shambolic administration pushed independence briefly over the 50% mark. But the SNP then fell apart due to domestic mishandling and suspicions of corruption. The likely return to power of a (hopefully) competent Labour Party in the 2024 national election will probably keep Independence off the Scottish agenda for some time. As Devine points out it would require a consistent 60% approval rating in the polls over many months, perhaps years, to force Westminster to grant a second referendum and this feels unlikely for some time, if ever.

[Ken MacIntyre · Rating 4 out of 5]

Auld and New Sangs

Tom Devine provides a fascinating survey of the Union since 1707, strongest in the 270 or so years after the Parliaments came together. He shows that there are two types of Scottish nationalism, one is about independence, the other a Unionist nationalism, a subset of British nationalism illustrated by the disproportionate role of Scots in the British Empire and Scottish militarism and its use of the kilt, tartan and the bagpipes. Both take pride in the fact that the Scottish nation has never, unlike Ireland, been conquered. Unionism has been strongest when Scotland was allowed autonomy, as during much of the 18th and 19th centuries, or during and after the Second World War, with enduring memories of the shared sacrifice and post war prosperity and social democracy. The Union weakened with the faltering of the post war settlement and a Prime Minister who neither understood Scotland nor had any empathy with Scottish identity. 'Never forget', said Margaret Thatcher to a colleague, 'I am an English nationalist'. It's no accident that support for devolution strengthened in those years, receiving a 74% endorsement in the 1997 referendum. Devine takes us up to the 2015 General Election, an SNP triumph and the catastrophic eclipse of the Labour Party in Scotland which followed the rejection of independence in 2014. One unanswered question is what would have happened if a third option of full control of all domestic policy and taxation, leaving monetary policy, foreign affairs and defence to Westminster, had been on the ballot paper. David Cameron vetoed Alex Salmond's proposal for 'devo max'. The subsequent campaign pledge by the main unionist party leaders for more powers, 'the Vow', made a damp squib look exciting. What Devine misses of course is the 2016 EU referendum which showed that Scotland and England have very different views about their place in the world and their relationships with neighbours. The promise that a 'No' vote was the best guarantee of EU membership looks very cynical in that context, the more so since the manner of Brexit took no account, unlike Ireland, of Scottish interests. More fundamentally, is Scotland a nation with the right to determine its own future, in which case the UK government has no right to stand in its way? Or is she just another UK region like Yorkshire? With another English nationalist who has no understanding or interest in Scotland as Prime Minister, will independence harden as devolution did in the 1980s? Six SNP victories in UK and Scottish Parliamentary elections appear a compelling mandate. On the other hand, the Alex Salmond affair and the failed trial, the splits in the independence movement, alleged financial irregularities in the SNP and are contradictory pressures making predictions or discerning trends difficult. The 'new sang' of 1999 is not yet over.

[William Smith · Rating 3 out of 5]

An expeditious rundown of Scottish political history from the 1707 Acts of Union to post the 2014 No independence referendum win. Devine's cursory glance at pivotal moments in Scottish history is engageble for anyone, like myself, with a shallow impression of Scottish history. However, much is left to be desired. Unlike Gibney's A Short History of Ireland , Independence or Union seems to fail in its core informative message. While the former was educative in Irish history, the latter was not informative about the legitimate question of independence. The reader is left neither anymore informed on the economic nor political significance of such a decision. Instead, the book is an extend epilogue of the cultural case for independence that, whilst distinctly informative, failed to satisfy my curiousity about the question of independence.

[Heather · Rating 2 out of 5]

Wasn't the "easiest" read, in the way of if you are walking into the book with a nill knowledge before hand the book seems to be overwhelming. I had to stop a few times and familiarise myself with other terms, phrases, and specific times but that is what I wanted.
I wanted to be informed, become a little familiar with Scotland's past and I have grown a lot in that knowledge thanks to the book.

I know that there is no way that I have retained all of the information that it has provided me , so it means that there are a few chapters that I will have to re-read in the future for I know that I had missed some vital parts ( my fault, should not be ready a "heavy" book when one is sleep deprived )

[David Ross · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sometimes a little biased towards the union but on the whole a great retelling of the history of Scotland and England's political union. It glosses over some important aspects of the relationship such as the English role in suppression of Scottish trade in the early days, but it does still mention them. Not shy in attributing blame to both Westminster and the Scots themselves, this adds a truthful, considered aspect that is tough to find when dealing with such a fiery topic. To be honest, I wouldnt have minded a bit more depth and am convinced that the author has the skills and knowledge to do so. I would recommend every Scottish Nationalist give it a read, even if it may be a bit sobering at times.

[Alexis Clear · Rating 2 out of 5]

Clearly shows the author's expertise on the subject matter but also assumes a knowledge basis for context for the reader that simply may not exist if you haven't studied British history. Follows the cultural history of Scottish nationalism but takes a wide jump to the push for independence as if they are causal. Can be densely written at times, and struggles with connecting primary sources. Greatly suffers from the unfortunate fact of its publication date (2015) just a year before Brexit with no addendum.

Overall a valuable insight to Scotland's cultural history but incomplete as an overarching historical narrative.

[Maria · Rating 4 out of 5]

(Rounding up a bit because although I got a lot from this, it often read more like a history textbook than I would’ve preferred.)

I bought this last fall in a secondhand bookshop in Edinburgh, as it felt like a very fitting book to buy there. I’ve been fortunate to visit Scotland a few times now and have fallen in love with the country (at least as much as is possible during several short trips), but I know so little about its history. This was a solid look at its relationship with England and the two countries’ union, but not always the most engaging read. I’d also be curious to read an updated edition published now, since this was published before the Brexit vote.

[Shimon de Valencia · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a primer on the background to the search for independence, this remains a valuable text. It’s exploration of themes. Born of 400 years of Union, Arellano researched, and eloquently stated. Whilst not being ‘up to date’ with regard to events in 2019, it’s value lies in the historical architecture behind the ongoing debate about Scottish ‘civic’ nationalism, and independence.

[Stacey · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very well written and detailed account of the Scottish-UK relationship throughout the years. It covers the union from its beginning in 1707 to the tail end of 2015, not long after the independence referendum.

I would recommend this to anyone interested I the future of the union. It provides an excellent background to the search for Scottish independence.

[Anthony page · Rating 3 out of 5]

Thought it was gonna be an even handed discussion about independence or union that would lurch back and forth bc he’s conflicted, I was wrong! It’s just 200 pages of a history of the union and then 70 pages of the case for devo max

[Stephanie · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars. Good overview.

[Neil McKinlay · Rating 3 out of 5]

A must read for those who need to know where Scotland was, is, and likely will be.

[Erin Young]

A page turner, it was not...

[Peter Murchie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating, illuminating and will shortly require additions chapters. Heartily recommended!

[Scott Morrow · Rating 5 out of 5]

Insightful, though slightly dated, could do with an additional chapter for the last 10 years. I won't fault the book for that though

[Angie Leonie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Brexit makes me want to cry,and relationships with my fellow country cousins is tense. But as an English women the option of moving to Scotland, is made more clearly after reading this book. A good political/historical and relevant book that I truly felt made me feel more British by the end.

[Michael Macdonald · Rating 4 out of 5]

Masterly overview of the history of the union by Scotland's premier historian. Showing how the mismanagement of the Union's ability to combine collective progress by the four nations with a keen sense of Scottish patriotism led to the demise of the Scottish Unionists. Then the centralising bias of Labour led them to neglect the Scottish people, probably no more than other heartlands in South Wales and the North of England but neglect all the same, in favour of internal division and the politics of noble gesture.

The SNP have filled this space as they evolved from protest group to a party of government, As Scots look for the ability to run their own affairs as they did in the Victorian era, can the Conservatives and the civil service unwind their lust to control everything from Westminster and save the Union or will the SNP persuade Scots that independence in Europe is practicable?

Margaret Thatcher's strident Southern English nationalism and disdain for the politics that made the Union work still lies at the heart of the debate over the survival of the three centuries of partnership.

[Mike]

Excellent story of Scotland's history before and after the Act of Union including its contemporary politics. I learned a lot about the country's success in the 19th and early 20th century. I didn't learn anything new about the root cause of Scotland failure to create new and competitive industries after the two world wars. The country's shortage of competitive and productive companies is at the heart of its current destructive populist politics.

[Mrs Kathryn S O'Hara · Rating 3 out of 5]

Informative background to the union

An informative read to the background of the referendum and a helpful hint as to the behaviour of the political class