The Union with Scotland and the Jacobite Rebellions

A shared monarch did not mean a united country

Before 1707, England and Scotland shared a monarch but remained separate kingdoms with separate parliaments. This mattered because decisions about religion, trade, war and the succession could create conflict between them.

The removal of James II of England, also James VII of Scotland, in 1688 made these tensions more dangerous. The Scottish Parliament accepted William and Mary as monarchs, but not everyone accepted the change. Jacobites believed that James and his Stuart descendants should regain the throne. Their opposition challenged the new monarchy and made Scotland an important security concern for England.

Jacobite resistance and the Massacre of Glencoe

In 1689, John Graham, Viscount Dundee, gathered Scottish support for the exiled James. His forces defeated government troops at Killiecrankie in July 1689, but Dundee died in the battle. Without his leadership, the Jacobites failed to maintain their momentum and the rising collapsed. An early military victory therefore did not produce a successful restoration of the Stuarts.

William then tried to secure loyalty in the Highlands. In August 1691, he offered a pardon to Jacobites who swore an oath of allegiance to him. This combined reconciliation with pressure: former opponents could be forgiven, but they had to recognise his authority.

The chief of the Glencoe MacDonalds missed the deadline for taking the oath. John Dalrymple, secretary of state for Scotland, used this failure as an opportunity to punish the clan. In February 1692, government troops killed 38 MacDonalds. The troops had been staying with the people they attacked and had accepted their hospitality. Homes were burned, and women and children died from exposure after fleeing.

The Massacre of Glencoe showed how the government could use violence to impose obedience. The betrayal of hospitality made it especially shocking, and it deepened anger and distrust towards William's government. It also showed that accepting the new monarch in Parliament had not ended conflict in the Highlands.

Darien: an economic ambition becomes a disaster

Scotland faced serious economic problems in the late seventeenth century. Bad harvests brought famine, while warfare disrupted trade with European partners. Scots were also excluded from trading with England's North American colonies. Establishing a Scottish colony seemed to offer a route to greater prosperity without depending on England.

The businessman William Paterson promoted a trading settlement at Darien, on the Isthmus of Panama. The narrow strip of land between the Atlantic and Pacific appeared to offer a valuable link between the two oceans. Investors hoped that a Scottish trading company could profit from international commerce.

The plan failed because commercial ambition was not matched by workable conditions. Settlers suffered from disease and inadequate supplies. Spain claimed the territory and threatened the settlement. William's government ordered English colonies not to help the Scots, partly to avoid provoking Spain and to protect English trading interests. A second expedition also failed, and the settlement was abandoned in 1700.

Darien had two connected consequences. Investors lost their money, making Scotland's economic position more difficult and compensation more attractive. Yet the refusal of English assistance also increased resentment against England. The disaster therefore helped make Union financially appealing to some Scots while making cooperation with England politically unpopular among others.

Why England and Scotland moved towards Union

England's main concern was the succession. The Act of Settlement 1701 provided for a Protestant successor from the House of Hanover. However, Scotland had its own Parliament and had not simply accepted England's decision.

Scottish legislation made the danger clearer. The Act anent Peace and War of 1703 sought to prevent future monarchs taking Scotland into war without parliamentary consent. The Act of Security of 1704 allowed Scotland to choose a different successor after Queen Anne's death. England feared that Scotland might choose a Stuart monarch, potentially creating a hostile neighbour allied with France. This raised the possibility of war on two fronts.

England responded with the Alien Act of 1705, designed to restrict movement and trade between the countries. Economic pressure was intended to force Scotland towards agreement. Alongside the damage caused by Darien, this increased the incentive to negotiate.

Union consequently grew from different priorities: England wanted a secure succession and northern border, while Scottish supporters of Union sought an answer to economic difficulties. It was a negotiated settlement shaped by unequal pressure, not simply a sudden expression of friendship.

What changed in 1707—and what Scotland retained

The Union took effect on 1 May 1707, creating the kingdom of Great Britain. Instead of separate English and Scottish parliaments, there would be one Parliament of Great Britain. Scotland was allocated 45 members in the House of Commons and 16 representative peers in the House of Lords in the first Parliament of Great Britain.

The settlement secured the Protestant Hanoverian succession throughout the new kingdom. For England, this addressed a major strategic danger: separate parliaments could no longer choose different monarchs.

Union did not abolish every separate Scottish institution. Scotland retained its own laws, legal system and courts, and Scottish Presbyterian religion was protected. Political union therefore did not mean that Scotland simply adopted all English institutions.

The economic terms were also important. Subjects of Great Britain gained freedom to trade within the united kingdom and with its colonies. Scottish merchants could now enter colonial markets from which they had previously been excluded. This offered an alternative to trying to build a separate Scottish trading empire, although access to markets was an opportunity rather than a guarantee of immediate prosperity.

Scotland was also to receive £398,085 10s, known as the Equivalent. This payment had several purposes, including reimbursing Darien investors, closing the Company of Scotland, paying overdue government salaries, supporting industries and helping Scotland meet future taxes imposed by the British Parliament. Compensation for Darien losses was therefore part of a wider financial settlement, not the payment's only purpose.

For Scottish supporters, these terms offered economic opportunities while preserving important national institutions. But agreement among politicians did not mean that all Scots approved. Scotland had lost its separate Parliament, and opposition to Union remained a rallying point for the Jacobites.

Union did not end Jacobite opposition

A French-backed attempt to land troops in Scotland in 1708 tried to exploit anti-Union feeling. The Royal Navy prevented a successful landing, and without French troops on the ground Scottish Jacobites did not rise. This demonstrated how foreign assistance could be crucial to turning opposition into an effective rebellion.

When Queen Anne died in 1714, George I became king under the Hanoverian succession. Jacobites rejected his claim and supported James Francis Edward Stuart, the son of James VII and II. Their opposition combined a dynastic aim—restoring the Stuarts—with hostility to the Union.

The Jacobite Rebellion of 1715

In 1715, the Earl of Mar raised the Jacobite standard at Braemar. A Jacobite manifesto asserted James's right to rule, rejected George I and presented the abolition of Union as part of the cause. It also offered financial incentives to encourage recruitment. Jacobite support was therefore not based on a single grievance: loyalty to the Stuarts, hostility to Union and material incentives could reinforce one another.

At Sheriffmuir in November 1715, Mar's army fought government forces commanded by the Duke of Argyll. The battle was indecisive, but it halted the Jacobite advance. Failure to turn their support into a decisive military breakthrough weakened the rebellion.

The rebellion also extended into England. Jacobites advanced as far as Preston, where government troops recaptured the town after two days of fighting in November 1715. This defeat ended that advance into England. Together, Preston and Sheriffmuir explain why the rising lost momentum: the English campaign was defeated while the Scottish army failed to achieve a decisive breakthrough.

The Jacobites also lacked effective French assistance. France was financially exhausted by Louis XIV's wars, and the new regency did not want another war with Britain. James arrived in Scotland late in 1715, when the rising was already weakening, and left in February 1716. His presence could not reverse the lack of support and military momentum.

The impact of the failed rising

The rebellion failed to restore the Stuarts or overturn the Union. Its defeat strengthened the position of George I and preserved the political settlement of 1707. It also demonstrated the limits of Jacobite mobilisation: opposition to the government was not enough without effective leadership, military success and reliable outside help.

The government also used reconciliation. The Indemnity Act of 1717 freed Jacobite prisoners and offered pardons to those who would swear loyalty to George I, although some, including Rob Roy and clan MacGregor, were excluded. Like William's earlier oath policy, this sought to turn defeated opponents into obedient subjects.

Nevertheless, failure in 1715 did not mean that Jacobite beliefs or resentment of Union disappeared. The monarchy and Union had survived a serious challenge, but opposition remained.