Moreover, the English negotiators were authorized to providernsome £400,000 to compensate the remainder of the 1,400 Scottishrnshareholders in the Company of Scotland.rnThe terms of the Treaty of Union were kept secret until latern1706. but when Scotsmen learned of this execrable bargainrnthe had no doubt as to its consequences—their country’srncomplete subjugation to England. For one thing, Scotland’srnParliament was absorbed into England’s (16 Scottish to 190rnEnglish peers and 45 Scottish to 513 English MPs). Morernalarming, however, was the fact that Scotland now was forcedrnto accept responsibility for a truly massive English Public (National)rnDebt, which was to increase some 500 percent betweenrnits inception in 1694 and 1720. In 1707, England’s debt totaledrnsome £18 million compared to Scotland’s minuscule £160,000rnobligation. Few advantages could accrue from such circumstances,rnexcept to a small group of Lowland merchants andrnWhig politicians who stood to benefit economically in the newrn”British” system.rnThe treaty passed the Scottish Parliament by a vote of 110 torn69ineadv 1707. Those who complained loudest were Jacobitesrnand their supporters in the Gaelic north and west and the Episcopalianrnnortheast. Many historians are quick to label these elementsrnof Scottish society “anachronistic” enemies of progressrnand free trade, intractable obstacles to rational, modern society.rnAnd in answer to charges of bribery and coercion regarding thernUnion of 1707, which without question are valid, scholars frequcntUrnexcuse these as acceptable means of conducting businessrnin the 18th century.rnThe Act of Union of 1707 made it impossible for the Highlandrnchiefs and northeastern lairds to resist encroachments onrntheir way of life except by military means. A call to arms was thernonly answer to restoring an independent Scottish nation ruledrnby the rightful branch of the Stewart dynasty. In contrast, Lowlandrnmerchants and politicians looked to the Williamite-rnHanoverian regime to protect their interests, and this all butrnassured war. Before 1707 the interests of these two groups needrnnot have been mutually exclusive, as Scotland and Englandrnmight have opted to undo the personal dynasty that had linkedrnthem since 1603. That minority of Scots who wished to takernadvantage of England’s economic opportunities might simplyrnhae mo’ed their residences south of the Tweed and asked forrndenizen status, leaving Scotlarrd, as it were, to patriotic Scots.rnInstead, they urged union and thereby made it impossible forrnthe majority with differing views of Scotland’s destiny to live atrnpeace in the same land.rnThe union of England and Scotland illustrates what occursrnwhen the forces of modernity confront traditional societies:rn”an inexorable standardization,” as Richard M. Weaverrnwrites, “[that] destroys refinement and individuality.” Mostrnnon-L,owland Scots held fast to the time-honored virtues of anrnagrarian, martial people, while the Lowlanders and their Englishrnpartners by 1700 had shifted their focus toward urban,rncommercial activities. To be sure, modern economies producedrnwhat accurately has been called “the sinews of war,” thusrnallowing pjigland and those in her political ambit to reap thernrewards of victory. However, the growing significance in warmakingrnof fiat money and credit, science, and technologyrnincreasingly stripped combat of its flesh-and-blood immediacy,rnand thus of its honor and shame, a process that turned heroesrninto managers and technicians. An accurate description of therntypical Whig responsible for this metamorphosis is given byrnMrs. Anne Grant of Laggan (1811):rnWith an appellation of comprehensive reproach, the’rncalled them Whigs…. It was used to designate a characterrnmade of negatives: One who had neither ear forrnmusic, nor taste for poetry; no pride of ancestr; no heartrnfor attachment; no soul for honor: One who merely studiedrncomfort and convcniency, and was more anxious forrnthe abscne(;s of positive evil, than the presence of relativerngood: A Whig, in short, was what all highlanders cordiallyrnhated,—a cold, selfish, formal character.rnIn marked contrast to the typical Whig in quest of “comfortrnand convenicnev,” the Scot dwelling north of the Highland linernsuffered a degree of material deprivation unfamiliar to mostrnWestern Europeans. In possession of a rugged homeland, hernlearned early the value of a tough physical and mental constitution.rnHis simple existence was coupled with an uncomplicatedrnvalue system in which courage and honor were as virtuous asrncowardice and betrayal were disgraceful. Gulture and principlernthus worked in tandem to produce in him unshakable devotionrnto chief, clan, and native soil, even in the face of Englishrngrapeshot and canister. Sentiment stimulated him in battle,rnand he feared dishonor worse than death. Fighting as part of anrnhomogeneous unit where each warrior had grown up in muchrnthe same way as his comrades, he paid particular heed to hisrnconduct in combat. Moti’ation canre first from within, but externalrnforces also moved him to perform bravelv; a trusty andrnresolute commander could lead him to storm the Gates of Hellrnwith nothing but cold steel. Indeed, his most eloquent culturalrnexpression was the red bite of a Glaymore. Like his Confederaterndescendants, the ferocity of his attack either quickly wonrnor lost the da); he preferred to risk everything on a single roll ofrnthe dice. I le was certainly not good material for the stock exchangernor the ccjunting house, nor would he have served as anrnintcrchangeatile cog in Britain’s technocratic war machine.rnTraditional Scotland, with its agrarian, kinship- and honorbasedrnsociety, was ill-suited for union with an emerging commercialrnsouth committed to developing state capitalist institutions.rnA rising elite, first appearing in England during thernTudor dynast} and moving north into the Lowlands during thernpersonal rule of the Stewarts, by 1700 stood poised to sweeprnaway the last x’estiges of Celtic civilization and replace it with arnbastardized English version that would assure quiescence abovernthe Forth and Clyde.rnIt is correct, I think, to view the series of Jacobite uprisingsrnbetween the 16S0’s and I740’s as a struggle between an old civilizationrndetermined to maintain a distinct Scottish nation andrna new one set on merging the entire British archipelago into anrn18th-eentury version of the New World Order. It is quite clearrnthat during this period the first effects of the Financial Revolutionrnbegan to reach Scotland. Thus her economy was transformedrnin such a way that those who could manipulate anrnincreasingly complex system for favors and pri’ilegcs foundrnthemselves with a stake in preserving the I Iano’crian Successionrn—the perceived font of largesse. The da)’ of the managerrnwas at hand, and those who opposed the I lanoverian revolutionrnwere viewed as threats to progress and the public weal that mustrnbe rooted out and destroyed.rnThe Highlands and the Episcopalian northeast served as thernwellspring of opposition to the Hanoverian dynasty because ofrntheir distrust oi the new economic and social order stemmingrnNOVEMBER 1995/17rnrnrn