ALLIANCE MARXIST-LENINIST (NORTH AMERICA) NUMBER 39: ISSUE MAY 2001:
PART TWO: MARX & ENGELS ON NATIONALISM, & CLASS STRUGGLE

2) MARX AND ENGELS VIEW OF BRITAIN, ENGLAND WALES AND SCOTLAND
Synopsis: Marx and Engels differentiated between Ireland, which they saw as a nation demanding national rights, from Wales and Scotland. The latter they recognised as countries-nations, that had been subsumed into England. They used the term England almost synonymously with Great Britain. They advocated no national rights for Wales or Scotland.
    Marx and Engels insistently claimed that Ireland was a separate nation that should be supported as such. But what was their attitude to Wales and Scotland? There is little doubt that Marx and Engels did at times, apply the term "nation" to both Wales and Scotland. Thus for example, Engels contrasts the Welsh farmers to English farmers, in order to explain their different rates of profit. He ascribes this to the "national" tendency of the Welsh to be less mobile than the English: "If the peasantry of England shows the consequences which a numerous agricultural proletariat in connection with large farming involves for the country districts, Wales illustrates the ruin of the small holders. If the English country parishes reproduce the antagonism between capitalist and proletarian the state of the Welsh peasantry corresponds to the progressive ruin of the small bourgeoisie in the towns. In Wales are to be found, almost exclusively, small holders, who cannot with like profit sell their products as cheaply as the larger, more favorably situated English farmers, with whom, whoever, they are obliged to compete. … Then too these Welsh farmers, by reason of their separate nationality, which they retain pertinaciously, are much more stationary than the English farmers. But the competition between themselves and with their English neighbors (and the increased mortgagees upon their land consequent upon this) has reduced them to such a state that they can scarcely live at all;"
Engels, Frederick: "The Agricultural Proletariat; from "The Condition of the Working Class in England"; In "Collected Works"; Volume 4; Moscow 1975; p. 304-305. A version is at:
 http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1840/cond-wce/cwe12.htm     But in a more general vein, that same early and brilliant text ["Condition of the Working Class"] is at pains to portray one class division across the three parts that comprise "England" or "Britain".
    Explicitly in the entire corpus of work from Marx and Engels, the statements are made that the Irish form a nation that has the right to, and will ultimately secede. But this is not seen in any way, in their references to the Scots and the Welsh.
    In fact, both Marx and Engels frequently used the terms "English" and "British" virtually interchangeably. This following is just one example: "The means employed by the Fabian Society are just the same as those of the corrupt parliamentary politicians: money, intrigues, careerism. That is, English careerism, according to which it is self-understood that every political party (only among the workers it is supposed to be different!) pays its agents in some way or other or rewards them with posts, These people are immersed up to their necks in the intrigues of the Liberal Party, hold Liberal Party jobs as for instance Sidney Webb, who in general is a genuine British politician".
Engels, Frederick : "Letter Engels to Karl Kautsky; Ryde September 4th 1892; In "Marx and Engels On Britain"; Moscow; 1953; p. 531. (Our Emphasis added); see also at Alliance web-site: http://www.geocities.com/hari6kumar/engels_finaluk.html     Marx and Engels held the view, as discussed above, that some nations held a legitimacy while others did not. Engels drew an explicit distinction between Scotland and Wales as nations who have either been suppressed or given up their national struggle – from Ireland which had not. His fragmentary remark is from 1870: "The English have been able to reconcile people of the most diverse races with their rule. The Welsh who cling so strongly to their nationality and their language have been completely integrated into the British Empire. The Scottish Celts, although rebellious until 1745, and since then almost exterminated, first by the government and then by their own aristocracy, have no thought of rebellion. The French of the Channel Islands fought bitterly against France even during the Great Revolution. And even the Frisians of Heligoland, sold to England by Denmark , are content with their lot, and it will surely be a long time before the laurels of Sadowa and the achievement s of the North-German Confederation arouse in them the agonised cry for unification with the great Fatherland. Only the Irish have proved too much for the English to cope with. The tremendous resilience of the Irish race is to blame for this. Despite the most savage suppression, shortly after each attempt to wipe them out the Irish stood stronger than ever before."
Engels, Frederick; "Plan of Chapter Two & Fragments for "The History of Ireland"; "Collected Works"; Volume 21; London 1985; pp. 312.     Indeed elsewhere Engels draws attention to the homogenisation that was taking place between the Scottish and the English, with the disappearance of the Gaelic language: "..The establishment of communication.
From 1818 to 1829, there were built in England and Wales, 1,000 English miles of roadway of the width prescribed by law, 60 feet, and nearly all the old roads were reconstructed on the new system of McAdam. In Scotland, the Department of Public Works built since 1805 nearly 900 miles of roadway and more than 1,000 bridges, by which the population of the Highlands was suddenly placed within reach of civilisation. The Highlanders had hitherto been chiefly poachers and smugglers; they now became farmers and hand-workers. And, though Gaelic schools were organised for the purpose of maintaining the Gaelic language, yet Gaelic-Celtic customs and speech are rapidly vanishing before the approach of English civilisation.."
Engels Frederick; 1845; "Condition of the Working class in England"; In Collected Works; Volume 4; Moscow 1975; p. 319. Or at: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1840/cond-wce/cwe02.htm     Why did Marx and Engels see a difference between Ireland on the one hand – and Wales and Scotland on the other?

To answer this we must briefly examine the pre-history of the Union of Scotland and with England, and that of Wales with England. The following history of Scotalnd, up to the "Glorious Revolution" of William of Orange, will use as much of the text of Marx and Engels that we have been able to trace, that is relvant to this topic.


3) SCOTLAND AND ENGLAND
Synopsis: From tribal times, four indigenous peoples of Scotland – Picts, Britons, Scots and Volatidini warred, but inter-mixed. Later on, yet other peoples invaded and became inter-mixed -Norsemen, Saxons, and finally Normans. In fighting off the Viking invasions, Scotland or Alba, began to fuse into a monarchy under King Malcolm Canmore II. But the proximity of rival kingdoms inevitably led to clashes. These clashes signified a constantly shifting of alliances between the English ruling classes and the Scottish ruling classes. The Royal House of Canmore was dependent upon the English, and became a funnel through which Norman penetration into Scotland occurred. Norman penetration was a modernising influence, with the import of feudalism. This revolutionized Scotland. Moreover it confirmed a division between Highland and Lowland. The Wars of Independence led by Wallace and Robert Bruce could not achieve long lasting success, as the fabric of trade was so closely tied to the market for wool in Europe. The market-burghs that arose, provided the reality behind a willing Union with England. This tendency to union was epitomised by the accession of the joint king of Scotland and England in 1603 - King James VI of Scotland - the grand-son of Henry VIII of England and the legitimate successor of Elizabeth I. Later still, a more formal constitutional Union took place in 1707. But interim steps ensured increasing cross-fertilization of the two pre-nations of England and Scotland. A pattern was woven of a steady integration of two histories, economies and broad culture. Around Roman times, four peoples inhabited present day Scotland:
Picts, occupying the extreme North and North-East – who spoke two languages; including P-Celtic:     But the Picts were themselves an amalgam of peoples, called by the Scots the ‘Cruithni’ – who also spoke Q-Celtic: "the mother of Gaelic, Irish and Manx";
Mackie JD Ibid; p. 16.     The Scots, spoke Gaelic and inhabited the Hebrides and the mainland lowlands; they embraced Christianity under the influence of an Irish abbot – Columba, in 563 AD. This appeared to allow a greater social cohesion allowing them to resist the Pict attacks;

    The Britons descended from the Romano-Celtic world, and inhabited the Lowlands and had also become Christian;

    And the Votadini in the West close to Lothian, who were another Romano-Celtic peoples (Mackie J.D.: "A History of Scotland"; 1964; Suffolk; pp17-19).

    The Romans enforced ‘unity’ extending across the islands of Britain, but after their departure, this became a fractured and warring reality. Nonetheless there was a commonality, which consisted of the fact that society had not moved beyond tribal relations:

"What evidence there is shows that the political and social structure of Scots, Picts, and Briton had much in common. All were organised in tribal kingdoms and the basis of society was a small home-stead inhabited by a kin group, and surrounded by some land, little of which was tilled, the rest .. pasture when it was not bare moor… Chiefs may have owned whole villages…."
Mackie Ibid; pp. 23-24.     A kingship or chiefly structure was in place. For example, The Picts recognised: "A mormaer (Great Steward)… represented the old provincial sub-king a "toiseach".. equated with the later ‘thane’".
Mackie, Ibid; pp. 23-24.     On top of internal wars between the inhabitants, external attacks were launched by the Frisian Danes, and the Angles of England.
    The Angles had established a strong state of Northumbria by 600 AD, and under King Aethelfrith, pushed further North. Later in an alliance with the Pits, the Angles defeated the Britons in 756, under Eanfirth’s rule, who married a Pict bride.
    When the Northumbrian state became over-expanded and dissolved, a new threat arose, from "Vikings", who first invaded other countries from Scandinavia, and then used Ireland, Norway and Denmark, as bases to attack Scotland. This led to an enforced defensive unity, and the Scots and Picts combined to resist the Norsemen between 780 and 850.
    After Kenneth MacAlpine gained the Pictish throne by inheritance in 1843, a Scottish united kingdom began to take shape – named either "Alba" – according to some historians (T.C.Smout) or "Scotia" by others: "His successors were buried in Iona as Kings of "The Scots", and the united kingdom took the name of ‘Scotia’".
Mackie Ibid; p. 19.     The Norse invaders became established at Orkney and the Hebrides, exerting an enormous influence upon Scotland. They forged links as the Orkney Earls intermarried with the Scots ruling families. The Scottish King Malcolm II had a grandson – Thorfinn the Mighty – who ruled over Orkney, the Hebrides, and Caithness and Sutherland and seven other Scottish earldoms.

ii) The Scottish Monarchy – the House of Malcolm II of Canmore
    The Danish invading presence in Britain (known as the Danelaw) became weaker, and led to a squeeze from both North and South. Southern English pressure collided with Northern Scottish pressure, at Corbridge:

"When after the Danish conquest Northumbria became a ‘no-man's Land’' where Angles, Britons, Danes of York, and Danes from Ireland were engaged in constant warfare, Constantine III (900-943) seized the opportunity to press south. Between 913 and 915 he went as far south as Corbridge to help a Northumbrian alderman against the Danes from Dublin. ….. before long came into contact with the power of Wessex, which advanced through the Danelaw with remarkable speed. "
Mackie Ibid; p.30.     By 921 Edward the Elder (Alfred's son) was at Bakewell, Derbyshire where Edward was accorded a form of homage by the Scots: "According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the King of Scots 'with all his people', together with the King of the Strathclyde Britons, and all his people, chose Edward for father and for lord."
Mackie Ibid; p.30     But this did not end Scottish resistance. The Scots were pressed by Saxons under Athelstan in 927. By 934 Athelstan defeated Constantine of Scots who had allied with the Irish Danes and Strathclyde at the battle of Brunanburgh (Now Solway). This led to a desire for peace by the Scots: "A crushing defeat (937) celebrated in the triumph-song embodied in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Thereafter the Scots sought the friendship of the English. This was easier to obtain because in 940 another Danish king from Ireland established himself at York. In 945 Edmund, after he had devastated Cumbria, ‘let it’ to Malcolm I, King of Scots."
Mackie Ibid; p.30.     Edmund’s "letting" to the Scot king, was driven by his wish to block the Irish path into Northumbria. This task was charged to Malcolm. Edmund’s successor Aethelred (the Unready), was preoccupied with Danish invasions. This allowed, in 1018, King Malcolm II to win a great victory at Carham. He then annexed Strathclyde. But when Canute came to power, in 1031 he stopped Malcolm’s excursions South, forcing a submission. Nonetheless by 1034: "Malcolm II had united himself a kingdom whose limits save for the holdings of the Scandinavians in the north and West were those of modern Scotland";
Mackie Ibid; p. 31. As Mackie comments however: "It was significant moreover, that it was only with support from England that Malcolm gained the throne… along with English aid came English domination".
Mackie Ibid p.34.     A.L.Morton, goes even further, identifying the Battle of Carham as a watershed, that began an on-going integration across the border: "Carham added the Lothians to Scotland. This battle did more than fix the frontier between England & Scotland in its present position. It was decisive in Anglo-Scottish history because it determined that Scotland would not be a purely Celtic country and that its most fertile and economically developed part was English in speech and race and open to feudal influences from the South";
Morton A.L.; "Peoples History of England"; Ibid; p. 105.     Malcolm Canmore became Malcolm II in 1057. To cement the bond with England, he married Margaret of the Wessex royal house. England then fell under Norman sway following the invasion of 1066, and William the Conqueror exacted homage from Malcolm at Abernathy in 1072.

    Both Malcolm and subsequent kings of Canmore, swore fealty to English kings, and were given grants of large tracts of English land. By the reign of David I (1124-53) English support carried the border to the river Tees and River Eden. Parts of Huntingdon, Northumberland, and Cumberland were the price of ensuring Scottish Royal fealty. It is true that the Scots Kings denied submission. But this was in reality a formal denial since their actions spoke otherwise. The Scots Kings:

"Denied the assertion, repeated by Henry III in 1251, and by Edward I in 1278, that this homage was for the whole kingdom of Scotland. Yet Henry III, during the minority of Alexander III who married his daughter claimed to be ‘Principal Counsellor to the Illustrious King of Scotland’, and maintained a definite Anglophile party; and Alexander III went south on the summons of Edward".
Mackie Ibid; p.41. iii) Planting Norman Feudalism Into Scotland

    In England, by as early as 600, according to A.L.Morton, feudal property rights began triumphing over tribal rights. This progressive step towards a centralised state, accumulated power in the hands of powerful individuals. These were the ‘delegates’ of a central Royal authority. This process was already advanced in England before the Norman invasion of 1066:

"The thane ("the descendant of the professional war men, who has been granted by the King or who has carved out for himself a larger holding, usually not less than five hides (600 aces) and often much more) was well on the way towards becoming a feudal lord, the coerl (holder of a hide… within whose ranks a rapid social differentiation set in. Some prospered and became thanes, more declined and the normal holding of a free man became smaller) well on the way to becoming a serf, private property in land was beginning to take shape and well-defined social classes were everywhere arising. At the same time the State…. Was superseding the looser tribal organisation that had served the English in their German homeland. Such a process, marked by the acquisition of special powers by a minority and at the expense of the remainder of the people, is in fact the only way in which society can advance beyond the tribal stage and must, for all its harshness, be regarded as essentially progressive."
Morton, A.L: "A People’s History of England"; London; 1974; pp. 38; 39-40.

"During the Tenth Century the consolidation of England into a single kingdom went hand in hand with the creation of an orgnaiston into shires, often centering around King Alfred’s burghs, or those of the Danes. While the earlier and smaller kingdoms could be administered from a single centre, there was no machinery adequate to cover the whole country…though the shire reeve or sheriff was in theory responsible to the King for the administration of the shire, the actual supervision from the center was in practice slight…in the sphere of justice also, greater strides were made in the direction of feudalism by way of the delegation of royal rights to powerful individuals… private courts of justice, always among the most definite marks of feudalism, were well established in England by the time of the Norman Conquest";
Morton Ibid; p.52-53.

     But it was the Norman invasion which sealed an English bargain with history, to make feudalism sovereign in England for the next century. The features of feudalism are quite precise and the English system lived up to these more completely than elsewhere: "The essential political feature of feudalism was the downward delegation of power, and all power was based upon the ownership of land. The King was the sole and ultimate owner of all land, and granted it to his tenants-in-chief in return for military and other services and for the payment of certain customary dues… Feudalism was always in theory a contract between king and vassal, but in England this contrast was more a reality than elsewhere";
Morton Ibid; pp. 60-61.     In contrast Scotland lagged behind, and remained within a tribal system of society. But as the Normans systematically up-rooted older tribal laws and customs in England, they introduced feudalism into Scotland. After all, the Canmore King David I (1124-1153) had come to the Scottish throne spending almost all his life of 40 years, at the Anglo-Norman court in London. There he had a married into Norman nobility and owned the Norman earldom of Huntingdon with property in 14 counties. The historian of the Scottish people, T.C.Smout points out that: "Within a generation or so after Malcolm Canmore’s death, the Royal House was Norman in blood and heart, ‘French in race and manner of life, in speech and in culture’ ; Walter of Coventry called them in 1212."
Smout T.C: "A History of the Scottish People 1560-1830"; London; 1969; p. 24.     Undoubtedly the Normans wished to pacify Scotland, and they introduced a system of military fortifications, the mottes: "The incoming Anglo-Normans introduced a new military system. This took two forms: the heavily armed horsemen provided an offensive force which half-naked tribesmen could hardly resist, and the 'mottes' formed strongholds to maintain the ground won. A motte was simply a wooden tower set on a mound perhaps crowned with a palisade and surrounded at a short distance by a ditch";
Mackie Ibid; p.41;     But the more far-reaching Norman impact upon Scotland, was to accelerate the transition from tribalism to feudalism. Until Norman entry, Scotland was largely tribal, even though it had started on the road to feudalism : "We know little about the organisation of the native peoples anywhere in Scotland before David’s reign, but Celtic society was clearly tribal based on a real or fancied kinship between every free man and the head of his tribe. The tribes apparently occupied fairly distinct areas of the country, had reached the stage of individual ownership of land among the tribesmen, were organised in social strata (the law of the Britons and Scots mentioned earls, thanes, freemen and carls) and possessed differing tribal laws that were memorised by hereditary wise men who handed them down unaltered to their sons. "
Smout Ibid; pp.24-25.     Marx described the tribal nature of especially the Highland part of Scotland, which persisted until very late on: "The clan belonged to a form of social existence which, in the scale of historical development, stands a full degree below the feudal state; viz., the patriarchal state of society. "Klaen", in Gaelic, means children. Every one of the usages and traditions of the Scottish Gaels reposes upon the supposition that the members of the clan belong to one and the same family. The "great man", the chieftain of the clan, is on the one hand quite as arbitrary, on the other quite as confined in his power, by consanguinity, &c., as every father of a family. To the clan, to the family, belonged the district where it had established itself, exactly as in Russia, the land occupied by a community of peasants belongs, not to the individual peasants, but to the community. Thus the district was the common property of the family. There could be no more question, under this system, of private property, in the modern sense of the word, than there could be of comparing the social existence of the members of the clan to that of individuals living in the midst of our modern society. The division and subdivision of the land corresponded to the military functions of the single members of the clan. According to their military abilities, the chieftain entrusted to them the several allotments, cancelled or enlarged according to his pleasure the tenures of the individual officers, and these officers again distributed to their vassals and under-vassals every separate plot of land. But the district at large always remained the property of the clan, and, however the claims of individuals might vary, the tenure remained the same; nor were the contributions for the common defence, or the tribute for the Laird, who at once was leader in battle and chief magistrate in peace, ever increased."
Marx, Karl, March 12 1853: "The Duchess Of Sutherland And Slavery"; In Collected Works; Moscow 1979; Volume 11; p.486; A version is also at: http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853scot.htm Naturally the fundamental attributes of feudalism were the same as in England: "Theoretically, feudalism is the antithesis of tribalism, since it based itself upon territorial units that had nothing to do with kinship or other personal relationships. In a feudal country, all land was royal land: all authority resided in the king. If the spending king chose to make his nobles a grant of land, he granted with it a measure of responsibility for those dwelling on the land - in feudal Norman jargon, the 'lord' granted his 'vassals' a 'fief'. This took place at a ceremony of homage that made explicit not only that the vassal was a delegate in certain matters of authority and government, and that he was bound to maintain a castle to help the king keep order, but also that the vassal owed very precise services in exchange - usually the duty of arriving armed on horseback with followers in time of war, and of attending his court and council (later his Parliament) when required. The vassal in turn could ‘subinfeudate', or grant part of his fief to a subtenant on similar terms: the process could go on for several stages until the peasant was reached at the base of the pyramid, the recipient of no rights other than that of his lord's protection and of permission to cultivate the land, but owing his lord heavy duties in the form of labour services and payment of agricultural produce. The fiefs themselves were hereditary but if heirs should fail the land reverted directly to the lord: similarly, if the heir was a minor, the rights and profits of administration returned to the lord during his minority. All rebellion or disaffection automatically carried the penalty of forfeiture. The whole feudal edifice rose to support the king at its apex as the ultimate lord of all land and the sole fountainhead of all justice.";
Smout Ibid; p.25. The Normans introduced a more thorough process. Once started the process proceeded rapidly: "How thoroughly was Scotland feudalised? The initial grants by David I were all to the Normans or Bretons who followed him from England; they were all confined to Lothian and southern Cumbria and to royal estates where the incomers would not intrude upon the native aristocracy. Not until the reigns of Malcolm IV (1153-1165) and William the Lyon (1165-1214), was the policy of feudalism for all begun in earnest. Malcolm systematically colonised British Strathclyde with Normans and Flemings, while William crossed the Forth-Clyde line to do the same in Angus and Perth. The alien friends of the king ultimately received fiefs even in such remote and Gaelic areas as Aberdeen and Moray."
Smout Ibid; pp. 25-26 And by and large the Celtic ruling class (mormaers) were eventually ‘brought in’: "Increasingly, moreover, the powerful mormaers, the Celtic earls who had been the backbone of the indigenous aristocracy in Alba, were brought into feudal relationship with the king. This happened with a element of compromise between the old order and the new. Many of the earls were not required to render the conventional 'knight-service' for the feudal host because by earlier Celtic tradition they already had the duty of calling out a tribal host of their kin and followers in time of war - a duty based in their case not upon homage for the land they occupied but on traditional respect for the blood of the Alban monarch whom they served. Their survival in areas of traditional influence, exercising some of their old functions in the old way, helped the survival of the old Celtic tie of kinship: and as the native aristocrats quickly began to inter-marry with Norman families, respect for this spread to the entire ruling class. As Miss Grant put it-'into the purely feudal relationship had crept something of the greater warmth and fervour of the simpler and more ancient bond of union of the clan".
Smout Ibid; p. 26.     Nonetheless, even now a full erosion of tribal society proved impossible. Right up to the Battle of Culloden in 1715, where the Jacobite (followers of James Stuart; Jacobites- a term derived from the Latin: Jacobus for James) pretenders were finally defeated by the English Duke of Cumberland, the tribal society resisted in the form of the Highland clans. The resistance was not ‘nationalism’, but a tribal resistance. It was this that helped to create a new and very long lasting division – between the Lowlands and the Highlands: "The discontents of the two Scotland’s were too distinctive: trade and religion in the Lowlands; clan conflict and subsistence for the thirds of the population, which lived beyond the highland line. The latter erupted periodically in Jacobite revolts, a doomed aristocratic localism. After the failure of the last of these in 1745-6, Lowland Scotland accelerated the ‘improvement’ which by 1800 brought it abreast of its southern neighbor in economic performance and ahead in "Enlightenment" , accelerating the denationalisation that Cumberland’s guns began on Culloden Moor";
Harvie, Christopher: "Scotland & Nationalism. Scottish Society and Politics 1707 to the present"; London; 1998;  p.13. iv) Civic Society Developments - Ecclesiastic Church Reform and the Burgh<
 
    King David I of Scotland, also ensured early church reform organised across the state. Abbeys were built on Cistercian monastic lines, many becoming economic pioneers. Linkages with French monasteries ensured a "European" intellectual environment in Scotland. This fostered Duns Scotus [John Duns of Maxton (1266-1308)], the famous scholar and philosopher, and others. In fact the Church formulated a ‘resistance’ to English rule, in countering the Archbishoprics of York and Canterbury who tried to absorb Scotland’s churches governance. In 1192-1225, in a series of rulings the Pope conferred special rights upon the Scottish Church: "Conferring a distinctive and separate national existence";
Smout Ibid; pp.29-30.     This enabled teh Scot church - Kirk - to play a role together with Robert Bruce in a proto-nationalism. In 1310, the Church gave its oath of fealty to Bruce, but in 1320 it proclaimed the Declaration of Arbroath, which stated famously: "As long as there shall be but one hundred of us remain alive we will never consent to subject ourselves to the dominion of the English. For it is not glory, it is not riches, neither is it honour, but it is liberty alone that we fight and contend for, which no honest man will lose but with his life".
Cited by Smout: Ibid; p. 30.     It was at this time – after David I introduced Norman feudal standards, that the towns – or burghs – arose in Scotland to any marked extent. Burghs were copied direct from England: "Towns and trade had existed before the 12th century, but burghs, in the sense of communities in which merchants and tradesmen were granted specific rights of internal self-government to support their purpose of internal and external trade were quite new… The intensification of trade at all levels… made them a doorway to the European world and the home of a small commercial class of urban men….. they were individually self-governing, and by the end of the 13th century were beginning to hold a separate assembly, the Convention of the Royal burghs, to decide on matters of burgal law common to all of them… the burgesses obtained monopolistic rights over commerce within the .. burghs and … drew together very diverse hinterlands into common commercial practice ... the people within the burghs were never predominantly Celtic or Gaelic-speaking. . . their main tongue was a dialect of English.."
Smout Ibid; pp. 30-31. v) The Wars of Independence 1286-1371 – William Wallace and Robert Bruce

    When King Alexander III died in 1286, the Throne fell vacant in Scotland. The only heir- was Margaret ("The Maid of Norway"), herself the daughter of Eric II of Norway and Margaret, the daughter of King Alexander II. All parties – Scotland, England and Norway – agreed to the marriage of Margaret to the first Prince of Wales – heir to the English throne. This would have united the thrones then. However in 1290, the Maid died in Orkney, en route to her marriage. Edward I of England now tried to force a recognition of his suzerainty upon Scottish rulers.

    As thirteen men contested the Scottish succession, Edward I was asked to adjudicate. This request implicitly acknowledged the English Crown’s rights to suzerainty. The leading contenders for the Scottish crown were John Balliol of the House of Canmore, and Robert Bruce the elder, the senior male descendent of King David I. There had already been a civil war between followers of one or the other.

    Edward demanded fealty from all contenders. He then summoned his Northern Tenants from England to arms, and he took control ["seisin"] of Scotland and its castles. He then appointed Balliol King of Scotland as he was the weakest and unlikely to withstand England. In meeting Edwards’ heavy demands for money and arms and men, Balliol provoked a mutiny. Several bishops, earls, and barons concluded in council, that they would sign an alliance with France. This was the first formal expression of the so-called "Auld Alliance".

    Edward launched a military campaign, and crushed opposition as far North as Elgin. He seized the Stone of Destiny of Scone. It was upon this stone, that traditionally Scotland’s rulers had claimed their right to rule. Edward convened a Parliament at Berwick where he enforced a government of Scotland similar to that of Wales. Balliol was exiled to France.
Thus began a long period of battles for independence, some taking the character of a massive and popular revolt. William Wallace son of a knight led the first and most popular of these. This revolt alarmed the barons who fell into irresolution and division. Wallace’s initial success, led to the final battle at Falkirk in 1298, where English archery won the day. Wallace fled but he was captured and hung.

    But Robert Bruce the younger (grand-son of the elder) now crowned himself King of Scotland at Scone – the traditional site. Despite a weak alliance, and against horrific brutality of the English, Bruce eventually won a series of battles. Edward I of England ("The Hammer of the Scots") died en route to battle in Burgh-upon-the Sands in 1307, and his son Edward II retreated. When Edward II did face battle, a much stronger host crushed the English, at the Battle of Bannockburn of 1314.

    The French King had secretly recognised Bruce in 1310. This French backing of Scottish leaders, staved off for a considerable period the English embrace. This was known as the "Auld Alliance" against England. It was during this time that the Abbot of Arbroath sounded the famous Arbroath Declaration. A truce with the English held for 12 years. Further wars, led to the Treaty of Northampton whereby Bruce was formally recognised as King of an independent realm, and his son betrothed to Edward’s sister Joan.

    However Bruce’s death led to the five-year old King David II ascending the Scot throne. The son of John Balliol now launched an attack as a pretender to the throne and then paid homage to Edward II. In the interim, the Scots turned to the French, and King David was brought up in France under the shelter of Philip VI.

    Upon David’s return to Scotland he launched war on England, prompted by French advice. He was defeated easily and imprisoned. After an enormous ransom, he returned to Scotland and found a ravaged country. Smout expresses the net effects of this period:

"Wars of this bitterness over so long a period had many side-effects on Scottish society, but its first and most lasting result was to fuse the Lowlanders into a single society".
Smout p. 36.     The broader significance of this warfare, was that it hindered the overall development of from feudalism into capitalism: "A permanent irregular war took ... place which reduced a great area on both sides of the border to a wilderness, put an end to the early development of Scottish trade and industry and kept Scotland feudal at a time when feudalism in England was rapidly declining."
Morton Ibid; p. 108.     Nonetheless, Scottish capitalist development was taking place, as an inevitable rise in trading led to a new class, which wished to exert itself. They developed in the burghs:
"A development of great importance: namely, the entry of the royal burghs into low national politics. There is good reason to suppose that they were in parliament in 1340 and 1341. The records are not complete; but they were certainly present in the General Council Of 1357 and in the Parliament Of 1366, both of which were concerned with taxation. Thereafter, though they may not have attended regularly, their place in parliament was assured. Moreover, the very end of the reign saw the beginning of what was to be a notable feature of the Scottish Constitution, namely the devolution of the authority of parliament, as regards both general business and justice, to small committees or commissions vested with the full power of the present assembly. In 1367 and 1369, commissions were entrusted to finish the work which parliament had begun. In 1370, authority was delegated to two bodies which were directed to report. What may be called the 'business committee' was the parent of the later Lords of the Articles; the judicial committee was the parent of the later Court of Session. The judicial function of parliament was extremely important - as late as 1399 the reason for holding an annual parliament was that the King's subjects might be 'servit' of the law."
Mackie Ibid; p.83.
    Normally considered as the refuge of parliamentary democracy, "parliament" was not equivalent north and south of the border. In Scotland it bore the character of a "law court". "Parliament had always been a law court: the auditares who first appear in 1341 are identical with the 'triers' and 'tenninours' of England and the maitres de requites of France."
Mackie Ibid; p.83.     The equivalent ‘standard-bearer’ of democracy in Scotland, was paradoxically the Church – or the Kirk: "Scotland had no Parliament in the English sense and [King] James I had learnt to regard its one democratic institution , the Kirk as the chief enemy of royal power."
Morton Ibid; p. 211-212.     However, two significant developments now took place. Firstly, town development exerted an independence from the central feudal authority – the King. "As they prospered the burghs shook off the direct control of the financial officers of the Crown. Even before the Wars of Independence they had begun to ease the burghal revenues from the Chamberlain paying him a fixed annual sum in compensation";
Mackie Ibid; p, 85.     Secondly, while this was occurring, the feudal barons were also exerting themselves against the Monarchy: "For more than a century the leitmotiv in Scottish history, as in the history of all western European countries at this time, was the struggle between the Crown and the Baronage, which the Monarchy as it developed, had endowed with much of its power.
In Scotland, the struggle was prolonged and bitter. The country was difficult; England was ready to exploit the over-mighty subject; the "Auld Alliance" with France… drew the energies of the kings away from their business of establishing a strong state."
Mackie ibid; p. 88.     Moreover, the kings of Scotland between 1311 (Start of the reign of Robert II) and 1542 (The end of the reign of James V) had not been able to subdue the Tribal Chieftains of the Highlands. Even by the time of the Battle of Flodden against the English in 1513, the chieftains refused to endure any feudal allegiance to the King: "In the Highlands and Islands.. disorder was rampant when [James IV] ascended the throne [1488]…. The attempt to treat Highland chiefs as Lowland Barons had little success and in 1498 the king reveled all the charters recently given….. he used the Gordons and the Campbells as government policemen".
Mackie Ibid; p. 115.     Throughout, the English had become integrated into a single state. The Wars of the Roses in England, had sealed the rise of the bourgeoisie. In this battle, the progressive small-capitalists found that their feudal opponents had enlisted the Highlanders: "Supporting the Lancastrians were the wild nobles of the Scottish and Welsh borders, the most backward and feudal elements surviving in the country. The Yorkists drew most to their support from the progressive South, East Anglia and from London…. The ultimate victory of the Yorkists was therefore a victory of the most economically advanced areas and appeared the ground for the Tudor monarchy of the next century with its bourgeois backing".
Morton Ibid; p. 150-151.     During the subsequent rise of the Tudor house, the bourgeoisie took a "back-seat" control of the state: "The Tudor monarchy rested on the fact that the bourgeoisie-merchant classes of the towns and the more progressive of the lesser gentry in the country was strong enough in the 16th Century to keep in power any Government that promised them the elbow room to grow rich , but not yet strong enough to desire political power as they did in the 17th." Morton Ibid; p.175. The Parliament was: "accumulating reserves of strength for the great struggles of the English Revolution".
Morton, Ibid p. 179.     The English Tudor monarchy however, ended with no heir apparent after the death of Queen Elizabeth I in 1603. In the midst of this succession issue, was the Reformation. With the battle between Catholicism and Protestantism, rose and fell the fortunes of great heirs.

    Mary Queen of Scots was the half sister of Elizabeth I of England. But as a part of the "Auld Alliance" had been allied to the Catholic French Dauphin, by marriage in 1558, decreed by the Scottish lords. During this marriage, Mary signed several deeds ceding Scotland to France if she were to die heirless. While she was in France, Scotland was under the Regency (1543-1560) of Mary Guise – the Queen mother. Throughout all this, the Reformation was sweeping Europe.
    Mary Guise took Scotland into French dominion. After the death of the Dauphin, Mary returned from France as Queen of Scots in 1561, into a Calvinist Scotland. Her colours were already painted for her, in the great rivalry being fought out in Europe for mastery. For Mary Queen of Scots came to represent Catholicism in Scotland. But this was in other words, a proxy for the power of Spain and France. Elizabeth I naturally took the place of Protestantism – and English supremacy. It was forgone that Mary would be imprisoned and then disposed of.

    Mary was executed in 1587, having left her claim to the English throne to Philip of Spain. Since Elizabeth then died heirless in 1603, a succession vacuum developed, into which swept the King of both Scotland and England – James Steuert. He was the great-nephew to King Henry VIII of England, and became James IV of Scotland and James I of England. He had been brought up knowing he owed this to the support by Elizabeth I of England. During the long imprisonment of his mother Mary Queen of Scots, she had connived with Spain to deprive her son of the Scottish throne.

vi) The Calvinist Reformation In Scotland
Synopsis: The Reformation was an essential part of the transition in European societies from feudalism to capitalism. The Roman Catholic Church was a major landholder and supporter of feudalism. It obstructed capitalist changes such as money lending (usury) and scientific investigations. The bourgeoisie therefore opposed it. In some countries the Reformation became an incomplete attack on absolutism, such as the Lutheran Reformation in Germany. In Scotland it adopted a more thorough going change under a Calvinist guise.

    Behind the "religious" wars of the Reformation, lay more fundamental societal battles. The Papacy was a key force in European society in the Middle Ages. It posed an alternative power to any absolute monarchy, by virtue of being the greatest landowner. To any centrist state power, as European monarchies were becoming, the Catholic church was a threat:

    Engels examined the origins of the English Revolution in a new preface to the 1892 edition of "Socialism Utopian and Scientific". This was a mature and considered view of English development. Engels traces the rise of the middle classes, and its battle with feudalism. He explicitly links its struggle to the struggle against the Roman Catholic Church. The Papacy obstructed forward scientific movements. The Church as a pre-eminent landowner was interested to preserve feudalism, so it was an oppressive landowner. Naturally, the struggle of the middle classes to open the world to science – obstructed by the Church, soon became allied to the oppressed peasantry. Engels points out this struggle was most acute in Scotland. He first outlined the general themes of the reformation: "When Europe emerged from the Middle Ages, the rising middle-class of the towns constituted its revolutionary element. It had conquered a recognized position within mediaeval feudal organization, but this position, also, had become too narrow for its expansive power. The development of the middle-class, the bourgeoisie, became incompatible with the maintenance of the feudal system; the feudal system, therefore, had to fall.
But the great international centre of feudalism was the Roman Catholic Church. It united the whole of feudalized Western Europe, in spite of all internal wars, into one grand political system, …It had organized its own hierarchy on the feudal model, and, lastly, it was itself by far the most powerful feudal lord, holding, as it did, fully 1/3rd of the soil of the Catholic world. Before profane feudalism could be successfully attacked in each country and in detail, this, its sacred central organization, had to be destroyed.
Moreover, parallel with the rise of the middle-class went on the great revival of science; astronomy, mechanics, physics, anatomy, physiology were again cultivated. And the bourgeoisie, for the development of its industrial production, required a science which ascertained the physical properties of natural objects and the modes of action of the forces of Nature. Now up to then science had but been the humble handmaid of the Church, had not been allowed to overlap the limits set by faith, and for that reason had been no science at all. Science rebelled against the Church; the bourgeoisie could not do without science, and, therefore, had to join in the rebellion.
The above, though touching but two of the points where the rising middle-class was bound to come into collision with the established religion, will be sufficient to show, first, that the class most directly interested in the struggle against the pretensions of the Roman Church was the bourgeoisie; and second, that every struggle against feudalism, at that time, had to take on a religious disguise, had to be directed against the Church in the first instance. But if the universities and the traders of the cities started the cry, it was sure to find, and did find, a strong echo in the masses of the country people, the peasants, who everywhere had to struggle for their very existence with their feudal lords, spiritual and temporal.
The long fight of the bourgeoisie against feudalism culminated in three great, decisive battles. "
Engels, Frederick; 1892; London: "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific"; 1892 English Edition Introduction. [History (the role of Religion) in the English middle-class]; Volume 27; Moscow; 1990; p289-290; or at: http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/int-hist.htm     In the bourgeois democratic revolutions that were to come, Engels described three as central battles - the Protestant Reformation of Germany, the Calvinist Revolution in Britain, and finally the French Revolution. Engels explains that the bitter Peasants’ War of 1525 in Germany was defeated because of the spinelessness of the German bourgeoisie. In Germany this resulted in a religion that favored an absolute monarchy – Lutheranism. But this was in sharp contrast to the equivalent process in England and Scotland. There the process erupted into Calvinist reforms. This, "especially in Scotland", assisted a new liberty: "The .. Protestant Reformation in Germany. The war cry raised against the Church, by Luther, was responded to by two insurrections of a political nature; first, that of the lower nobility under Franz von Sickingen (1523), then the great Peasants' War, 1525. Both were defeated, chiefly in consequence of the indecision of the parties most interested, the burghers of the towns — an indecision into the causes of which we cannot here enter. From that moment, the struggle degenerated into a fight between the local princes and the central power, and ended by blotting out Germany, for 200 years, from the politically active nations of Europe. The Lutheran Reformation produced a new creed indeed, a religion adapted to absolute monarchy. No sooner were the peasant of North-East Germany converted to Lutheranism than they were from freemen reduced to serfs.
But where Luther failed, Calvin (Editors’ emphasis) won the day. Calvin's creed was one fit for the oldest of the bourgeoisie of his time. His predestination doctrine was the religious expression of the fact that in the commercial world of competition success or failure does not depend upon a man's activity or cleverness, but upon circumstances uncontrollable by him. It is not of him that willeth or of him that runneth, but of the mercy of unknown superior economic powers; and this was especially true at a period of economic revolution, when all old commercial routes and centres were replaced by new ones, when India and America were opened to the world, and when even the most sacred economic articles of faith — the value of gold and silver — began to totter and to break down. Calvin's church constitution of God was republicanized, could the kingdoms of this world remain subject to monarchs, bishops, and lords? While German Lutheranism became a willing tool in the hands of princes, Calvinism founded a republic in Holland, and active republican parties in England, and, above all, Scotland."
Fredrick Engels; 1892; London: "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific"; 1892 English Edition Introduction. [History (the role of Religion) in the English middle-class]; Volume 27; Moscow; 1990; p290-292. http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/int-hist.htm     John Knox was a priest who served in England, and then traveled throughout Europe, ending in Geneva as the Minster of the English congregation. He returned to Scotland in 1559, and led the Scottish reformation into Calvinist lines.

    The Reformation in Scotland was more thorough going than even that in England. This was partly because it was directed against an even more oppressive church system than in England:

"The Reformation in Scotland took a different course. There the Church was even more corrupt and discredited than in England and the movement against it was of a broader character. It triumphed when it was it was able to ally itself with national sentiment and to assume some characteristics of a national liberation. In England the Reformation subordinated the Church to the State: in Scotland there were moments when the State seems likely to be altogether subordinated to the Church. Scottish Protestantism drew its inspiration from Geneva, where Calvin did for a time set up a dictatorship of the righteous. The Scottish Kirk was always democratically organised and it was indeed only inside the Kirk that democratic ideas took root in Scotland."
Morton Ibid; p, 193. vii) The Covenant

    In a key development, large sections of the nobility and landed gentry – the lairds – allied themselves to the rising capitalists. The Auld Alliance had led the Queen Regent, Mary Guise – to appoint a largely French court and elite. This alienated the Scottish lower lairds. They were also enraged at the tithes they were forced to pay to the Church. The lairds therefore became allied to the town – burgh merchants:

"The success of Protestantism …. (lay in - Editor) taking the right bastions in society. First of all it succeeded in the burghs, where as Knox put it, the work of the preachers was enormously helped by the merchants and mariners ‘who frequenting other countries heard the true doctrine affirmed and the vanity of the papistical religion openly rebuked.’… merchant guilds, cooperation between the burgesses of different towns … made towns the ideal environment to sustain a secret and cellular church organization………..the lairds and magnates……Firstly… (had) economic resentment particularly strong amongst the lesser lairds such as in Angus or in Ayrshire and other parts of the south-west who … detested having to pay heavy tithes to churchmen ostentatiously wealthy in a poor country……..Secondly there was a significant group of the nobility led by the Earls of Argyll, Morton and Arran, who felt they had been neglected in the affairs of state by the Queen regent since … 1554.. Thirdly and most general of all – there was the feeling that the Regent had betrayed Scotland to make it a French province. … since 1554 Mary of Guise had … filled high offices with Frenchmen, sending the ancient crown of Scotland to crown the Dauphin when the married the adolescent Mary queen of Scots in 1558…"
Smout; Ibid; pp-.60-61.      The Lairds then signed the first formal "Covenant" in 1556: "Binding the ‘Congregation of Christ’ to resist the ‘Congregation of Satan’….. the Covenant was by and large an assertion of religious freedom";
Mackie Ibid; p.152.     A later larger "National Covenant" in 1638 united the nobility, the burgesses and lay ministers in reiterating changes in worship not sanctioned by either parliament or the free assemblies. It went on to abolish the episcopacy (i.e. the bishopric) [Smout Ibid; pp 66-67).

    Under religious slogans, the Scottish reformationists engaged the French troops of the Queen Regent Mother (Mary Guise) and were about to be defeated, when the English navy provided relief. This led to the expulsion of French influence from Scotland, and correspondingly the rise of English influence. It was formalized into the Treaty of Leith 1560.

    Engels explicitly noted the progressive role of Calvinism in Scotland as regards the English bourgeois revolution:

"While the Lutheran Reformation in Germany degenerated and reduced the country to rack and ruin, the Calvinist Reformation served as a banner for the republicans in Geneva, in Holland, and in Scotland, freed Holland from Spain and from the German Empire, and provided the ideological costume for the second act of the bourgeois revolution, which was taking place in England. Here, Calvinism stood the test as the true religious disguise of the interests of the contemporary bourgeoisie and on this account did not attain full recognition when the revolution ended in 1689 in a compromise between part of the nobility and the bourgeoisie. The English state Church was re-established; but not in its earlier form as a Catholicism with the king for its pope, being, instead, strongly Calvinized. The old state Church had celebrated the merry Catholic Sunday and had fought against the dull Calvinist one. The new, bourgeois Church introduced the latter, which adorns England to this day."
Engels, Frederick: Ludwig Feuerbach And The End Of Classical German Philosophy"; Part 4 "Marx";  Volume 26; Moscow 1990; pp.395-396; a version is at:  http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886ecgp/lf4.htm

viii) The English Revolution, and Its Effects Upon Scotland

    Engels traces this ‘religious’ step forward to the victory of Cromwell and the English revolution: "In Calvinism, the second great bourgeois upheaval found its doctrine ready cut and dried. This upheaval took place in England. The middle-class of the towns brought it on, and the yeomanry of the country districts fought it out. Curiously enough, in all the three great bourgeois risings, the peasantry furnishes the army that has to do the fighting; and the peasantry is just the class that, the victory once gained, is most surely ruined by the economic consequences of that victory. A hundred years after Cromwell, the yeomanry of England had almost disappeared. Anyhow, had it not been for that yeomanry and for the plebian element in the towns, the bourgeoisie alone would never have fought the matter out to the bitter end, and would never have brought Charles I to the scaffold. In order to secure even those conquests of the bourgeoisie that were ripe for gathering at the time, the revolution had to be carried considerably further — exactly as in 1793 in France and 1848 in Germany. This seems, in fact, to be one of the laws of evolution of bourgeois society."
Engels, Ferderick; 1892; London: "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific"; 1892 English Edition Introduction. [History (the role of Religion) in the English middle-class]; Volume 27; Moscow; 1990; p290-292. http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/int-hist.htm     The significance of the Calvinist revolution in Scotland was immense. In England a half-hearted compromise took place whereby the worst features of the Roman Catholic Church were either removed or often, simply modified or ‘reformed’. In Scotland on the contrary, there was a real popular involvement. Indeed there as the Church had been even "more corrupt and discredited than in England", its overturn took on the "the characteristics of a movement of national liberation", according to A.L.Morton: "Both in organisation and doctrine the Church of England claimed to be 'Catholic', that is, to maintain the tradition of the universal Church, but also 'reformed', that is, to have shed a number of corrupt practices and beliefs that had crept in during the Middle Ages. So far as possible the formulation of doctrine was kept vague, and, as in 1549, the services of the Church were carefully drawn up so as to be capable of alternative interpretations.
"The Church of England as by law established" owed its form to the political needs of the time. It was regarded by many as a temporary arrangement, few were enthusiastically in its favour. But even fewer found it so repugnant that they were prepared to take up arms against an otherwise popular government to bring about its destruction. In the Elizabethan settlement Protestantism assumed the form most compatible with the monarchy and with the system of local government created by the Tudors. The parson in the villages became the close ally of the squire d almost as much a part of the State machine as the Justice of the Peace.
The Reformation in Scotland took a different course. There the Church was even more corrupt and discredited in England and the movement against it was of a broader character. It triumphed when it was able to ally with national sentiment and to assume some characteristics of a movement of national liberation. In England formation subordinated the Church to the State: in d there were moments when the State seemed be altogether subordinated to the Church. Scottish Protestanistism drew its inspiration from Geneva, where Calvin did for a time set up a dictatorship of the righteous. The Scottish Kirk was always democratically organised, indeed only inside the Kirk that democratic root in Scotland. "
Morton A.L.: "People's History of England"; London 1974; p.193     The Protestant James had at least, formally by now, united the two kingdoms. But James saw a threat from the Calvinist reform in Scotland to the absolute monarchy, and he insisted that the Kirk re-establish the bishops. But he did not succeed, as the Parliament rejected this (Mackie Ibid; p. 195). James needed to rein in dissent in religion, seeing this as a prelude to dissent in state affairs: "The reason for James’ opposition to Puritanism became plain; it was not theological- James himself was a Calvinist - but political. "A Scottish Presbytery agreeth as well with monarchy as God and the Devil," and "No bishop no King," was his crystallization of the issue…. The Scottish Kirk organised from the bottom through a series of representative bodies , rising to an Assembly composed of ministers and delegates from congregations, was indeed the logical embodiment of the democratic spirit inherent in Puritanism".
Morton Ibid; p. 222.     James’ drive to weld the Church to the Monarchy was partially successful in England, led by Archbishop Laud. But they failed in Scotland, leaving further inevitable struggles. These had some consequences for the great English revolution, under the reign of James IV’s son, Charles I. Since Charles was determined to uphold Absolute Sovereignty of the Crown over Parliament and Church – conflict with the National Covenant [See above] was inevitable. The Convenanters now demanded " a free assembly" of the Kirk and a "free Parliament" (Mackie Ibid; p. 205).The ensuing war was won by the Scottish Covenanters led by Alexander Leslie.

    The successful Scots war, led to two consequences.
Firstly, a continued hold on democratic values in the Scottish kingdom, and the constitutional ratification of the Covenant in Scotland.
Secondly, the fueling of anti-Monarch sentiment in England, with the Long Parliament of 1640 which swept away feudalism.

"The English revolution may be said to begin in November 1640 with the impeachment of Strafford"; [ Sir Thomas Wentworth, later Earl of Strafford, the most capable minister of Charles I; impeached for high treason].
Morton; Ibid; p. 224.

"A minor revolution had been accomplished when the Long Parliament absolved the Star Chamber, the Court of high Commission and the other perogative courts. All that was intended was to destroy bodies that had become instruments of royal tyranny. Yet what was done was to cut the main artery of the Old State apparatus. Crown, Council, Prerogative Courts Justice of the Peace had formed a living chain. Now the link between the central organ and the extremities was removed… A new State apparatus had to be created, not around a Council responsible to the King, but around a Cabinet responsible to the bourgeoisie in Parliament."
Morton; Ibid; p. 228.

     Both King Charles I and the Parliament of England, asked the Scots for help, as the English Civil War now broke out. The Scottish general Assembly signed a treaty [‘The Solemn League and Covenant" of 1642] with the English Parliament. But differences in doctrine between the English and Scottish versions of ‘Presbyterianism’ [a loose Church indeed] left to division. The Scots aided in the defeat of the King, and delivered the King as a prisoner to the English parliament. But now they demanded his release, and marched on England under Hamilton (Mackie Ibid; p. 219).

    Oliver Cromwell easily defeated them, and events moved inexorably to the execution of Charles I by the English Parliament.

ix) The Restoration Monarchy of the Stuarts and "The Glorious Revolution" of William of Orange

    When Charles II, the heir to Charles I, signed the Scottish Covenant he agreed to bide by democratic norms, becoming then a "Covenanted King", or a limited monarch. Therefore the Scottish nobles recognised him as their legitimate monarch. But this provoked the English Parliamentarians, who led by Cromwell invaded Scotland.
    Cromwell now began a forcible colonisation of Scotland, and by 1652 all Scotland had fallen. By that time, the English parliament "declared" One Commonwealth: "Burghs and shire were to elect representatives to give assent to the Union and a tax was imposed on every county for the payment of the English army….. in Barebones' Parliament [1653] an Act for Union was read twice… Then Cromwell took office as Lord protector under the "Instrument of Government’, a document which gave Scotland thirty members out of 460 and ordinance of Union was produced by the Council in April 1645."
Mackie Ibid; p. 225.     The effect of this first declared union between Scotland and England, was simply to expose Scottish trade into competition with the stronger English commerce: "Prosperity did revive after 21650, but it was not spread evenly over the country…. The free trade granted by the Declaration of union brought Scotland into competition with the far stronger English commerce and the greater English shipping";
Mackie Ibid; p,. 229.     Upon Cromwell’s death however, compromise was accepted in England as well. Charles II became King of Scotland, after agreeing to abide by Parliament there. But inevitably, as Charles II led the Restoration, he tried to reverse the gains of the revolutionary forces. In Scotland, he again tried to restore the Bishoprics. But again despite intimidation, 270 ministers refused to be ordained by a bishop (Mackie Ibid p. 234).

    Finally, the continued erosions of the position of the English and Scottish capitalists and the new land-holders who had benefited from the destruction of the landed Church, forced an invitation to William of Orange to take the Throne away from the Stuart dynasty.
    Marx and Engels commented on the Restoration monarchy and the extent to which the Stuarts had endangered the English State:

"Guizot can say only the most trivial commonplaces about the overthrow of the English Restoration monarchy. He does not even cite the most immediate causes: the fear on the part of the great new landowners, who had acquired property before the restoration of Catholicism -- property robbed from the church -- which they would have to change hands; the aversion of the commercial and industrial bourgeoisie to Catholicism, a religion in now way suitable for its commerce; the nonchalance with which the Stuarts, for their own and their courtier's benefit, sold all of England's industry and commerce to the French government, that is, to the only country then in a position to offer England dangerous and often successful competition, etc. " Marx Marx, Karl & Engels, Frederick 1850: "Review of: Guizot, Pourquoi La Revolution D’Angleterre a-t-elle Reussi? Discours sur l’histoire de la Revolution D’Angleterre;"Collected Works; Volume 10; Moscow 1978; pp.252, 254-255; A Version is to be found at: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850-17c/index.htm     The Restoration – a counter-Revolution - had been opposed by the new alliance of tthe Whig Party – composed of merchants, rising finance capitalists and sections of the most powerful landowners. They succeeded in the elections of 1679. Initially they failed to prevent the brother of Charles – James Stuart coming to the throne. As the Royalists, organised into the Tory party, they attacked the corporate merchant towns. The Charter of the City of London was revoked, and similar actions occurred around the country.

    In reply, the Whigs encouraged a coup led by the Duke of Monmouth [illegitimate son of Charles], who roused jacquerie peasant rebellion in Lyme Regis. Seeing the enthusiasm for this, the Whigs drew back and Monmouth was defeated. When James tried to take this opportunity to push for further Catholicisation of the Church and his courts, he turned the Tory party against him. Now the Whigs and Tories united to invite William of Orange – married to the Protestant Mary, daughter of Catholic James, to the Throne.

    This allowed the "Glorious Revolution" to be glorious – so-called - because it excluded any mass revolts. The new king enabled the vast expropriation of lands, by the new "bankocracy", as named by Marx:

"The "glorious Revolution" brought into power, along with William of Orange, the landlord and capitalist appropriators of surplus-value. They inaugurated the new era by practising on a colossal scale thefts of state lands, thefts that had been hitherto managed more modestly. These estates were given away, sold at a ridiculous figure, or even annexed to private estates by direct seizure. All this happened without the slightest observation of legal etiquette. The Crown lands thus fraudulently appropriated, together with the robbery of the Church estates, as far as these had not been lost again during the republican revolution, form the basis of the today princely domains of the English oligarchy. The bourgeois capitalists favoured the operation with the view, among others, to promoting free trade in land, to extending the domain of modern agriculture on the large farm-system, and to increasing their supply of the free agricultural proletarians ready to hand. Besides, the new landed aristocracy was the natural ally of the new bankocracy, of the newly-hatched haute finance, and of the large manufacturers, then depending on protective duties."
Marx, Karl; Capital Volume One :"Part VIII: Primitive Accumulation: Chapter Twenty-Seven: Expropriation Of The Agricultural Population From The Land". CW; Volume 35; New York; 1996; pp.713-714; http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch27.htm     The English revolution resulted in a state power that assisted the development of the capitalist class. But this was in reality a class alliance between the landed aristocracy and the finance bourgeoisie. Marx and Engels, pointed out that the commercial eminence of the English state was due to the domination of the bourgeoisie that was achieved under the reign of William III:     By the time that the so called "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 took place, a symbiosis between England and Scotland’s trade had been a fact for some time. In the main, the Scottish did not challenge this Anti-Stuart take over of the monarchy, excepting for the Jacobite Rebellions (See below). The cause of the Jacobites for the people, was not so much a claim for the Stuarts, as one of an anti-English sentiment: "Jacobitism was politically dead in England after 1715….. In Scotland it had greater political importance , especially in the Highlands where it had deep social roots in the struggle of the clans to preserve their tribal organizations and culture against the bourgeois and partly English culture of the Lowlands. It was also kept alive by the feud between the dominating Campbell clan and the clans which resented its supremacy. Since the Campbells had long been Covenanting and Whig, their opponents naturally adopted Jacobitism. The rest of Scotland was not Jacobite in the real sense but a long-standing hatred of England and things English weighed against Covenanting memories of Stuart persecution to produce a rough neutrality."
A.L.Morton Ibid; p. 300.     William was responsible for foul attempts to subdue the Highlands. He demanded a new Oath of Fealty known as the "Assurance", which when it was delayed in the case of the Macdonald Clan in Glencoe, was met with the ‘Massacre of Glencoe’ (Mackie Ibid p. 252).

x) The "Act of Union 1657" to "The Anglo-Scottish Union" of 1707

    The world’s first fully bourgeois nation, would inevitably influence its northern neighbor even more profoundly than previous English states had. The period of great colonial rape was arising, and every bourgeois was falling over it trying to keep up with the English.

    In this drive for colonial profits, the Scottish bourgeoisie for the burghs – were not successful despite serious attempts. First was Nova Scotia, a venture that got bailed out into English hands. Then came the "Darien Scheme". Although the Navigation Acts of England seriously limited the ability of other nations to make profits (See Alliance Number 22, JULY 1996: The Formation Of The USA; also at http://www.geocities.com/hari6kumar/MARXUSA.html ) the Scots did manage to establish small settlements. An Act of the Scottish parliament in 1693, enabled companies to trade overseas. A Company was established, that in fact received considerable support from [Pounds sterling 300,000] the City of London to break the monopoly of the East India Company. The Isthmus of Darien was the target situated in the Panama Straits.

    Darien was however claimed by Spain also. As English money pledged to the Darien scheme, was pressurized by sectional English interests, to leave the venture, the "entire value of the coinage of Scotland" was put at this scheme by Scottish interests (Mackie Ibid; p. 255). From 1698 to 1700 attempts were made to secure this colony, but Spanish pressure forced it to close, losing 2,000 men and monies.

    This undoubtedly forced many Scottish merchants and rising bourgeoisie to realize that their own economic interest demanded partnership with the English. Perhaps the key clauses of the Act of Union related to opening of the English market:

"Several clauses of the Act of Union were devoted to economic matters, but Articles IV and V were the two of most importance. Article IV provided for Scottish entry without payment of custom duty to the English domestic and colonial markets while Article V stated that all Scottish-owned vessels would now rank as ships of Great Britain, so affording the Scots the privilege and protection of inclusion within the Navigation Acts. The union created the biggest free-trade zone in Europe at that time, and gave Scottish merchants the liberty to trade legally in such profitable American commodities as tobacco, sugar, indigo and rum (a privilege not granted to the Irish) and, at the same time, it afforded them the protection of the Royal Navy."
Devine T.M. "The Scottish nation. 1700-2000"; London; 1999; p. 54     From the English perspective, closing a strategic hole –Scotland – to its’ European enemy, the French was a major motivation for Union. William of Orange, had a week before his death, recommended to the English Parliament that complete union was necessary to ensure solidity against the French – the main imperial threat to England on the Continent. Unquestionably, the Union was not a ‘free choice’ on the part of the Scottish nation. The English passed an "Aliens Act" that seriously impeded Scottish trade with England, unless Scotland recognised the Hanoverian (ie William’s heir – Queen Anne) succession : "Nothing illustrates the anti-English feeling in Scotland better than the events leading up to the Act of Union, secured by the Whigs in 1707 as a piece of military and party strategy. In 1703 the Scottish Parliament passed an Act of Security, aimed against the Hanoverian succession. The Whigs were thus faced, in time of war, with the possibility of a complete break with Scotland and of a regime that might be actively hostile. The English Parliament countered in 1704 with an Aliens Act banning all imports from Scotland till the Hanoverian settlement had been accepted. This robbed the Scottish cattle breeders of their chief market Troops were moved north to the border and war seemed possible. The corruption of the Scottish lords and Parliament proved more effective and the Act of Union was passed amid rioting and the drilling of irregulars. Scotland gained the right to trade with English colonies: on the other hand her undeveloped industries suffered from English competition. Politically, as has been said, Scotland became "one vast rotten borough" which was controlled by the Duke of Argyle, the head of the Campbells."
Morton Ibid; p. 300.

    Therefore, by no means was Union unacceptable to all of the Scottish people. Industry and capital had everything to gain and indeed did so:

"Economic interest was one strand among many, but not the least important. Many Scots saw as a panacea for Scotland’s poverty the creation of a British common market: … Daniel Defoe… dwelt upon the opportunities in such a common market for Scottish cattle and linen cloth sold in London with the tariff barrier down… it was an argument that went down well, since for nearly 20 years Scottish trade to Europe had been in decay while Scotland’s exports to England had gained in importance throughout the 20th century….. Linen cloth, Scotland’s premier industry output rose 3 fold in volume and four fold in value between the years 1736-40 and 1768-72.. Imports of tobacco from Chesapeake Bay in America increased still more-from eight million pounds in 1741 to forty-seven million pounds in 1771: the Scottish share of the British tobacco trade similarly rose from 10% in 1738 to 52% in 1769…. Nearly all tobacco that came in was re-exported, thereby providing Scotland with something to sell to the continent and rejuvenating her old European commercial connections. A new branch of this was the trade from Russia to import flax for the linen industry…… Between 1775 and 1771 the official value of imports rose by two and half times, and of exports (including re-exports) by three and a half times: at the same time the share of Scotland in British foreign trade rose from less than 5 % to about 10% of the total…… Simultaneously with the rise in overseas trade, there was the growth of a strong banking system consisting of the Bank of Scotland (from 1695), The Royal Ban of Scotland (from 1727) the British Linen Company (from 1746…) and a number of uncharted joint-stock banks and partnerships. There were both a sign of an assistance to economic development: it has been calculated that the total assets of Scottish banks rose from around pounds sterling 600,000 in 1750 to around 3,700,000 in 1770."
Smout Ibid .p., 243; 244-245.

"Whatever the merits of otherwise of the 1707 Act of Union, there is little doubt that in the long-term the Union meant that Scotland sacrificed political independence in the pursuit of economic gain…..the effect of the Union was to strengthen those interests who had a stake in transforming Scotland into a progressive capitalist society."
Dickson T (Editor); "Scotland & The First British Empire 1707-1770’s: The confirmation of Client Status"; In Editor Dickson, T; "Scottish Capitalism. Class States And Nations From before the Union to the Present"; London; 1980; p. 89.

"The ‘golden age’ of the Glasgow tobacco trade dates from the 1740’s and, astonishingly by 1758 Scottish tobacco imports were greater than those of London and all the English outports combined…. Glasgow became the tobacco metropolis of western Europe, and in the west of Scotland the profits of the trade fed into a very wide range of industries, founded banks, and financed agricultural improvement through merchant investment. The transatlantic trades played a key role in the development of the Glasgow area, the region that was to become the engine of the Scottish industrialization";
Devine T.M. Ibid; p. 59.

     The English Public Debt, the Bank of England had all combined into an enormous force as outlined by Marx and Engels in their review of Guizot. This pulled the Scottish merchants into their wake. Marx elsewhere, points out that for the Scotch, clear progressive goals were attained in the Union between England and Scotland: "It is a fact that in Scotland landed property acquired a new value by the development of English industry. This industry opened up new outlets for wool. In order to produce wool on a large scale, arable land had to be transformed into pasturage. To effect this transformation, the estates had to be concentrated. To concentrate the estates, small holdings had first to be abolished, thousands of tenants had to be driven from their native soil and a few shepherds in charge of millions of sheep to be installed in their place. Thus, by successive transformations, landed property in Scotland has resulted in the driving out of men by sheep. Now say that the providential aim of the institution of landed property in Scotland was to have men driven out by sheep, and you will have made providential history.
Marx, Karl :"The Poverty of Philosophy; Chapter Two: The Metaphysics of Political Economy The Method"; In CW: Volume 6; Moscow; 1976; p. 173;  Or at:
http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1840/pov-phil/ch02.htm     Elsewhere Marx also points out the progressive guarantee of religious freedoms, that the Union gave the Scottish people, being a victory of ‘the republican form of Church government – (Presbyterian Calvinism). Marx’s support is apparent in his comment. This Union was ratified by a Scottish parliamentary vote: "Scotland & England parts of the same island. But the population differed from that in England. In Scotland at that time there was peace at home and abroad. There were only 3,000 troops in Scotland (Defoe D: The history of the Union of Great Britain, Edinburgh, 1709; quoted from G.Ensor "Anti-Union. Ireland As She Ought to Be"; Newry; 1831; pp.56). Again when the Parliament of Scotland was to be elected, the electors were appraised that they were to depute members to decide respecting the Union of the 2 countries. When Union [was] first proposed in the Scotch Parliament, 64 majority for Union. Scotland by the Union secured for itself the republican form of Church government. Presbyterianism became thus by law the religion of the State. By the Irish Union the religion of 1/10 of the people was declared to be the State religion. Act of Union declares this to be the law for ever. Yet the Repeal of the Scotch Union in the English House of Commons in 1713 [was] rejected by a majority of 4 voices."
Marx, Karl; 1869: "Ireland From the American Revolution to the Union of 1801". In Collected Works; Volume 21; pp. 269-270.     As even a proponent of Scottish nationalism concedes: "There is little doubt that in the long-term the Union meant that Scotland sacrificed political independence in the pursuit of economic gain….the effect of the Union was to strengthen those interests who had a stake in transforming Scotland into a progressive capitalist society." "Dickson T (editor): "Scottish Capitalism. Class, State and Nation from Before the Union to the Present"; London 1980;p.89.     However these latter authors, make the point that the types of industry and capital developed in Scotland were not in direct competition with the English ones, thereby trying to paint Scottish industry as somehow being put into an 'unfair' position: "In relation to Britain as a whole, what were to emerge in Scotland were complementary rather than competitive forms of capitalism, their inter-dependence being regularised under the political domination of Westminster."
Dickson T (editor): "Scottish Capitalism. Class, State and Nation from Before the Union to the Present"; London 1980; p.90.     However true this was, the further claim that this represents ‘dependent’ or client status’ is very tenuous: "Such were the roots of the dependent or client status of the Scottish bourgeoisie"; Dickson T (editor):
"Scottish Capitalism. Class, State and Nation from Before the Union to the Present"; London 1980; p.90.     The fact is that there was a complete acceptance of the financial wisdom of the unity of the two states, as far as the interests of the capitalists were concerned: "It is misleading to conceive of the political relations between England and Scotland during the 18th century in terms of one-sided domination. On the contrary, what made the terms of the Union tolerable if not positively acceptable was the way in which the indigenous ruling class was involved in the exercise of political power, not only in Scotland itself but in Britain as a whole and later the Empire overseas. This involvement developed piecemeal as Scotland was assimilated within the structure of the politics prevailing in England during the 18 th century. .. The incorporation of members of the Scottish ruling class… served to justify the reality of dependence inherent in the terms of the Act of Union since it guaranteed the survival of distinctively "Scottish" forms of political and social as well as economic domination".
Dickson T (editor): "Scottish Capitalism. Class, State and Nation from Before the Union to the Present"; London 1980; p.102.     These Scottish distinctions included a separate legal system: "Statutes were enacted affecting both countries, the distinctiveness of Scotland’s legal system survived in several important respects. Thus is no sense were English forms of law and order imposed upon Scotland. In fact the continuation of the country’s own legal tradition was not only a significant factor contributing to the comparative quietude of Scottish social life in the 18th century, but acted more positively to hasten the spread of capitalist social relations";
Dickson T (editor): "Scottish Capitalism. Class, State and Nation from Before the Union to the Present"; London 1980; p.90.     And a guaranteed status of a National Church for the Kirk (Dickson T (editor): "Scottish Capitalism. Class, State and Nation from Before the Union to the Present"; London 1980; p.117); an educational system of social control that was distinct from England’s. All this culminated in a period of intellectual progress known as the Scottish Enlightenment, characterised by thinkers such as David Hume and Adam Smith. In the words of Dickson and co-author Burgess K: "Taken together uniquely Scottish forms of political decision making, legal disciplines and religious and educational control were allowed to flourish under the terms of the Act of Union. These constituted what Gramsci would have called the structure of Scottish ‘civil society’, …. It was the fact that these forms of social control were made by Scots themselves and were so adapted so readily to the needs of a developing British capitalism, which made them so effective in reconciling the leaders of Scottish society to their client or dependent status in relation to England…";
Dickson T (editor): "Scottish Capitalism. Class, State and Nation from Before the Union to the Present"; London 1980; p.24. It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the ruling classes of Scotland made an alliance with the English ruling class to develop capital together, in tandem. This cannot be characterised as a colonial relationship.

 xi) The Unity of the Scottish and English Capitalist Classes Accompanied by Working class Unity

    There is little doubt that the unity of Capital extended over the border. Marx and Engels recognised in their practical work in working class politics of their day. Thus the attempts of the capitalists repeatedly to divide the workers of Scotland from the workers of England. This was firmly resisted by Marx and Engels in order to extend the unity of the Working Class over the border. When the tailors of London organised, scabs were to be brought in from Europe. Once frustrated, the London capitalists tried to use Scotland to circumvent the problem. But the International Working Men’s Association pointed out that this would lead to undermining the London workers positions: "Some time ago the London journeymen tailors formed a general association to uphold their demands against the London master tailors, who are mostly big capitalists. It was a question not only of bringing wages into line with the increased prices of means of subsistence, but also of putting an end to the exceedingly harsh treatment of the workers in this branch of industry. The masters sought to frustrate this plan by recruiting journeymen tailors, chiefly in Belgium, France and Switzerland. Thereupon the secretaries of the Central Council of the International Working Men's Association published in Belgian, French and Swiss newspapers a warning which was a complete success. The London masters' maneuver was foiled; they had to surrender and meet their workers' just demands.
Defeated in England, the masters are now trying to take counter-measures, starting in Scotland. The fact is that, as a result of the London events, they had to agree, initially, to a 15 per cent wage rise in Edinburgh as well. But secretly they sent agents to Germany to recruit journeymen tailors, particularly in the Hanover and Mecklenburg areas, for importation to Edinburgh. The first group has already been shipped off. The purpose of this importation is the same as that of the importation of Indian COOLlES to Jamaica, namely, perpetuation of slavery. If the Edinburgh masters succeeded, through the import of German labour, in nullifying the concessions they had already made, it would inevitably lead to repercussions in England. No one would suffer more than the German workers themselves, who constitute in Great Britain a larger number than the workers of all the other Continental nations. And the newly-imported workers, being completely helpless in a strange land, would soon sink to the level of pariahs.
Furthermore, it is a point of honour with the German workers to prove to other countries that they, like their brothers in France, Belgium and Switzerland, know how to defend the common interests of their class and will not become obedient mercenaries of capital in its struggle against labour."
Marx, Karl;  "A Warning"; On behalf of the Central Council of the International Working Men's Association, London, May 4, 1866. The First International Working Men's Association: In CW: Volume 20; Moscow 1985; pp. 162-163.  http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1864iwma/1866-c.htm     A separate capitalist attempted maneuver to divide-and-rule-the-workers across the border, was described by Engels: "The Newcastle Trade Union Congress is also a victory. The old unions, with the textile workers at their head, and the whole of the reactionary party among the workers, had exerted all their strength towards overthrowing the eight-hour decision of 1890. They came to grief and have only achieved a very small temporary concession. This is decisive. The confusion is still great, but the thing is in irresistible motion and the bourgeois papers recognise the defeat of the bourgeois labour parry completely and with terror, howling and gnashing of teeth. The Scottish Liberals especially, the most intelligent and the most classic bourgeoisie in the kingdom, are unanimous in their outcry at the great misfortune and hopeless wrong-headedness of the workers."
Engels Frederick. Letter to Sorge. Helensburgh, Scotland, September, 1891;  http://marxists.org/archive/marx/letters/sorge/91_09_14.htm

xii) The Highland Clearances – Sweeping the Scottish People into Emigration and Industrialisation

    We noted above, the divide in Scotland between the Highlands and the Lowlands. On the whole the ruling class of the lowlands, abutting onto England geographically, was anxious to embrace the new prospects of Union. One aspect was the commercialization of land, and the need for sheep grazing to accommodate the wool industry. Of course this had underlaid the grab for land in the English movement against feudal rights of the peasants, and the grab of previously communal land. This was known in England as the Enclosures.

    In Scotland, the same impetus lay behind the later Highland Clearances. The resistance of the Highlanders to the new capitalist order was dealt with cruelly by the Scottish capitalist landowners. Marx exposed these cruelties in articles on the Duchess of Sutherland, whom he dubbed "that female Mehmet Ali". Marx showed that the whole wealth of the Sutherlands was based on "the ruin and expropriation of the Scotch-Gaelic population":

"The history of the wealth of the Sutherland family is the history of the ruin and of the expropriation of the Scotch-Gaelic population from its native soil. As far back as the 10th century, the Danes had landed in Scotland, conquered the plains of Caithness, and driven back the aborigines into the mountains. Mhoir-Fhear-Chattaibh, as he was called in Gaelic, or the "Great Man of Sutherland", had always found his companions-in-arms ready to defend him at risk of their lives against all his enemies, Danes or Scots, foreigners or natives."
Marx, Karl; March 12 1853: "The Duchess Of Sutherland And Slavery"; In "On Britain"; pp. 372-376. Written March 1853.; or CW Volume 11; Moscow; 1979;  pp. 486-494; or at:
http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853scot.htm The British in fact now used the clans of the feudal system in Scotland as one of the bases from which to develop a modern military: "After the revolution which drove the Stuarts from Britain, private feuds among the petty chieftains of Scotland became less and less frequent, and the British Kings, in order to keep up at least a semblance of dominion in these remote districts, encouraged the levying of family regiments among the chieftains, a system by which these lairds were enabled to combine modern military establishments with the ancient clan system in such a manner as to support one by the other."
Karl Marx, March 12 1853: "The Duchess Of Sutherland And Slavery"; CW Volume 11; Moscow; 1979;  pp. 486-494; or at : http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853scot.htm Marx describes who the old tribal clan system  was subverted by the new nexus between humans- money: "The first usurpation took place, after the expulsion of the Stuarts, by the establishment of the family Regiments. From that moment, pay became the principal source of revenue of the Great Man, the Mhoir-Fhear-Chattaibh. Entangled in the dissipation of the Court of London, he tried to squeeze as much money as possible out of his officers, and they applied the same system of their inferiors. The ancient tribute was transformed into fixed money contracts. In one respect these contracts constituted a progress, by fixing the traditional imposts; in another respect they were a usurpation, inasmuch as the "great man" now took the position of landlord toward the "taksmen" who again took toward the peasantry that of farmers. And as the "great men" now required money no less than the "taksmen", a production not only for direct consumption but for export and exchange also became necessary; the system of national production had to be changed, the hands superseded by this change had to be got rid of. Population, therefore, decreased. But that it as yet was kept up in a certain manner, and that man, in the 18th century, was not yet openly sacrificed to net-revenue, we see from a passage in Steuart, a Scotch political economist, whose work was published 10 years before Adam Smith's, where it says (Vol.1, Chap.16): "The rent of these lands is very trifling compared to their extent, but compared to the number of mouths which a farm maintains, it will perhaps be found that a plot of land in the highlands of Scotland feeds ten times more people than a farm of the same extent in the richest provinces."
Karl Marx, March 12 1853: "The Duchess Of Sutherland And Slavery"; CW Volume 11; Moscow; 1979;  pp. 486-494; or at: http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853scot.htm The livlihood of the peasant remained predominantly as a payment in kind until 1811: "The rental of the Kintradawell estate for 1811, from which it appears that up to then, every family was obliged to pay a yearly impost of a few shillings in money, a few fowls, and some days' work, at the highest. It was only after 1811 that the ultimate and real usurpation was enacted, the forcible transformation of clan-property into the private property, in the modern sense, of the Chief. The person who stood at the head of this economical revolution was a female Mehemet Ali, who had well digested her Malthus – the Countess of Sutherland, alias Marchioness of Stafford."
Karl Marx, March 12 1853: "The Duchess Of Sutherland And Slavery";CW Volume 11; Moscow; 1979;  pp. 486-494;   or at: http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853scot.htm     Marx is often passionate in his writing, but his eloquence against "my lady Countess" of Sutherland must be one of his most heart-felt identification with the poor: "Let us first state that the ancestors of the Marchioness of Stafford were the "great men" of the most northern part of Scotland, of very near three-quarters of Sutherlandshire. This country is more extensive than many French Departments or small German Principalities. when the Countess of Sutherland inherited these estates, which she afterward brought to her husband, the Marquis of Stafford, afterward Duke of Sutherland, the population of them was already reduced to 15,000. My lady Countess resolved upon a radical economical reform, and determined upon transforming the whole tract of country into sheep-walks. From 1814 to 1820, these 15,000 inhabitants, about 3,000 families, were systematically expelled and exterminated. All their villages were demolished and burned down, and all their fields converted into pasturage. British soldiers were commanded for this execution, and came to blows with the natives. An old woman refusing to quit her hut was burned in the flames of it. Thus my lady Countess appropriated to herself 794,000 acres of land, which from time immemorial had belonged to the clan. In the exuberance of her generosity she allotted to the expelled natives about 6,000 acres -- two acres per family. These 6,000 acres had been lying waste until then, and brought no revenue to the proprietors. The Countess was generous enough to sell the acre at 2s 6d on an average, to the clan-men who for centuries past had shed their blood for her family. The whole of the unrightfully appropriated clan-land she divided into 29 large sheep farms, each of them inhabited by one single family, mostly English farm-laborers; and in 1821 the 15,000 Gaels had already been superseded by 131,000 sheep. A portion of the aborigines had been thrown upon the sea-shore, and attempted to live by fishing. They became amphibious, and, as an English author says, lived half on land and half on water, and after all did not live upon both. Sismondi, in his Etudes Sociales, observes with regard to this expropriation of the Gaels from Sutherlandshire -- an example, which, by-the-by, was imitated by other "great men" of Scotland: "The large extent of seignorial domains is not a circumstance peculiar to Britain. In the whole Empire of Charlemagne, in the whole Occident, entire provinces were usurped by the warlike chiefs, who had them cultivated for their own account by the vanquished, and sometimes by their own companions-in-arms. During the 9th and 10th centuries the Counties of Maine, Anjou, Poitou were for the Counts of these provinces rather three large estates than principalities. Switzerland, which in so many respects resembles Scotland, was at that time divided among a small number of Seigneurs. If the Counts of Kyburg, of Lenzburg, of Habsburg, of Gruyeres had been protected by British laws, they would have been in the same position as the Earls of Sutherland; some of them would perhaps have had the same taste for improvement as the Marchioness of Stafford, and more than one republic might have disappeared from the Alps in order to make room for flocks of sheep. Not the most despotic monarch in Germany would be allowed to attempt anything of the sort." " Karl Marx, March 12 1853: "The Duchess Of Sutherland And Slavery"; CW Volume 11; Moscow; 1979;  pp. 486-494; or at: http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853scot.htm Another version of the same is contained in Karl Marx; "‘Das Capital' Volume One"; Chapter Twenty-Seven: Expropriation Of The Agricultural Population From The Land Part VIII: Primitive Accumulation"; In CW; VOlume 35; New York; 1996; pp.718-723.
http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch27.htm

    Marx saw the same process in Scotland, as that in England, but just a century or so behind. It was part and parcel of a forcible expropriation aimed at making sheep-walks, making deer parks, and contributed to the enormous emigration movement to the colonies of America and Australia. At the same time it was the basis for forming the proletariat, now being needed by the Scottish capitalists in the towns – not in the Highlands:

    Summarising the whole process, Marx maintained it was part of the creation of a proletariat: "The spoliation of the church's property, the fraudulent alienation of the State domains, the robbery of the common lands, the usurpation of feudal and clan property, and its transformation into modern private property under circumstances of reckless terrorism, were just so many idyllic methods of primitive accumulation. They conquered the field for capitalistic agriculture, made the soil part and parcel of capital, and created for the town industries the necessary supply of a "free" and outlawed proletariat."
Karl Marx Capital Volume One; Chapter Twenty-Seven: Expropriation Of The Agricultural Population From The Land Part VIII: Primitive Accumulation"; In CW: Vol 35 Ibid;  http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch27.htm

CONCLUSIONS TO PART TWO
The failure of independent imperialist path had led the Scottish bourgeosie to throw their lot in with the English capitalists. Increasingly, the countries economic lives were intertwined, leading to a single nation.
Was there any change in this economic reality over the period to 2001?
- GO TO TABLE CONTENTS
ALLIANCE 39
- GO TO PART THREE - SCOTLAND IN THE ERA OF FINANCE IMPERIALISM TO 'GLOBALISATION';
 - BACK TO PART ONE;
- BACK TO "WHAT IS NEW?" PAGE OF ALLIANCE

- Devine T.M. "The Scottish nation. 1700-2000"; London; 1999;
- Dickson, T; "Scottish Capitalism. Class States And Nations From before the Union to the Present"; London; 1980;
- Engels, Frederick: "The Condition of the Working Class in England"; In "Collected Works"; Volume 4; Moscow 1975;
- Engels, Frederick : "Letter Engels to Karl Kautsky; Ryde September 4th 1892; In "Marx and Engels On Britain"; Moscow; 1953;
- Engels, Frederick: Ludwig Feuerbach And The End Of Classical German Philosophy"; Part 4 "Marx";  Volume 26; Moscow 1990; pp.395-396;
-Engels, Frederick; 1892; London: "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific"; 1892 English Edition Introduction. [History (the role of Religion) in the English middle-class]; Volume 27; Moscow; 1990;
- Engels, Frederick; "Plan of Chapter Two & Fragments for "The History of Ireland"; "Collected Works"; Volume 21; London 1985;
- Engels Frederick. Letter to Sorge. Helensburgh, Scotland, September, 1891;
- Harvie, Christopher: "Scotland & Nationalism. Scottish Society and Politics 1707 to the present"; London; 1998;
-Mackie JD: "A History of Scotland"; Suffolk; 1964;
Morton A.L.; "Peoples History of England";  London 1971; New York 1974;
-Marx, Karl & Engels, Frederick 1850: "Review of: Guizot, 'Pourquoi La Revolution D’Angleterre a-t-elle Reussi? Discours sur l’histoire de la Revolution D’Angleterre;'"Collected Works; Volume 10; Moscow 1978; pp.252, 254-255;
- Marx, Karl :"The Poverty of Philosophy; Chapter Two: The Metaphysics of Political Economy The Method"; In CW: Volume 6; Moscow; 1976; p. 173;
-Marx, Karl, March 12 1853: "The Duchess Of Sutherland And Slavery"; In Collected Works; Moscow 1979; Volume 11; p.486-494;
- Marx, Karl;  "A Warning"; On behalf of the Central Council of the International Working Men's Association, London, May 4, 1866. The First International Working Men's Association: In CW: Volume 20; Moscow 1985; pp. 162-163.
- Marx, Karl; 1869: "Ireland From the American Revolution to the Union of 1801". In Collected Works; Volume 21; pp. 269-270.
- Marx, Karl; Capital Volume One: "Part VIII: Primitive Accumulation: Chapter Twenty-Seven: Expropriation Of The Agricultural Population From The Land". CW; Volume 35; New York; 1996; pp.713-714;
-Nairn Tom; "The Break-Up of Britain"; London 1977

-Smout T.C: "A History of the Scottish People 1560-1830"; London; 1969;


 BACK TO TABLE CONTENTS ALLIANCE 39
ONTO NEXT SECTION Part 3:SCOTLAND FROM ERA OF FINANCE IMPERIALISM TO 'GLOBALISATION'
To GLOBALISATION