Talk:Acts of Union 1707

/Archive 1

Archived
Due to all past discussions being inactive since last November, the previous talk page has been archived. Adam אָדָם (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"A new Scottish Parliament" section should be removed
The devolved parliament is not directly related to the acts of union. Count Truthstein (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There should be some mention of the new parliament, even if it is just a see also link instead of a dedicated section. Road Wizard (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy of article title
There is only one Act of Union in the context of Scottish history and that is the act passed in 1707 by the Scottish Parliament. As this article embraces both the English and Scottish Acts, the title should contain the date 1706 for the sake of accuracy and clarity (even though the article does explain that both Acts came into effect in 1707). Kim Traynor 22:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, and when is a year 1706 or 1707? The Union with Scotland Act 1707 was passed by the Parliament of England before the Union with England Act 1706 was passed by the Parliament of Scotland:-  at that time the legal year began in Scotland on 1st January, but in England and the then colonies not until 25 March. Uniting the Kingdom 23:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC) + Qexigator (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

This is an extremely narrow view of what is meant by the idea of the history of a country. A country's history is not contained within its borders like air in a bottle. What the English Parliament did had a profound effect upon Scotland that continues to this day. That makes it part of Scottish history regardless of the fact that it took place in London. Poihths (talk) 01:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, the issue is more complex (but also simpler) than you're suggesting. It's not entirely a question of Old Style/New Style dating. Although the English act is often dated "1706", this is under a rather archaic legal convention that dates acts from the start-date of the Parliament in which they were passed, which may have been several months before they were in fact passed. These days, the more usual historical convention is to date them from the date on which they received the royal assent, which in the case of the English Act of Union was 6 March 1707 (or, if you prefer, 6 March 1706/7). Therefore, no problem. GrindtXX (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, well almost. The Scottish Act was passed first, in 1707. The English Act was passed later, and dated 1706. It's not Julian v Gregorian (both used the Julian calendar) but whether the year legally starts on 1 January (in Scotland) or 25 March (in England), so early March that year was already 1707 in Scotland but was still 1706 in England.


 * As GrindtXX observes, while the year legally began on 25 March ordinary parlance used 1 January, so period 1 January - 24 March was frequently cited as "1706/7". England was brought into line with Scotland at the Calendar (New Style) Act 1750, when the Empire accepted the Gregorian calendar. Hogweard (talk) 08:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Typo
I don't know what this phrase is supposed to mean, so I can't correct it. Perhaps someone else can. "pensions and so forth not outwith the usual run of government." Poihths (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems like plain ordinary English to me. Hogweard (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Historical Background - How far back?
Clearly a judgement call over how far back an 'historical background' should go. But a long term overview might suggest that the Union between Scotland and England was merely the closing chapter in a story of uniting British kingdoms which had been going on ever since the Romans had left more than a thousand years earlier. Both the Scotland and England of 1707 were themselves created by the progressive amalgamation or union of a multitude of earlier smaller British kingdoms, and the Union of 1707 could be described as simply the final event in a long-term historical process. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.229.231 (talk) 11:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Acts of Union 1707. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081210200006/http://www.parliament.uk:80/actofunion/tk_01_dream.html to http://www.parliament.uk/actofunion/tk_01_dream.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081012160340/http://www.parliament.uk:80/actofunion/tk_02_cromwell.html to http://www.parliament.uk/actofunion/tk_02_cromwell.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080925233310/http://www.parliament.uk:80/actofunion/09_bribery.html to http://www.parliament.uk/actofunion/09_bribery.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Unions of Crowns
Being merely Canadian, I can't quite make out the following passage:

Although described as a Union of Crowns, until 1707 there were in fact two separate Crowns resting on the same head (as opposed to the implied creation of a single Crown and a single Kingdom, exemplified by the later Kingdom of Great Britain).

The implication of "until 1707" seems to be that after 1707 there was no longer "two separate Crowns resting on the same head". If not X="Union" what "X of Crowns" reduced their number, separateness, or resting pate?

In my own crib, I began to rewrite this as "Although described as a Union of Crowns, it was actually a merger of two parliaments whose separate crowns already resided upon the same head" ... but then I lost the semantic thread at the problematic aftermath of "until". &mdash; MaxEnt 18:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

It's confusing :) Prior to 1707, England and Scotland were separate states with separate thrones but the same monarch (as with the Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary) ie two states, two thrones, one person. After Union, it was one state, one throne, one person.

Robinvp11 (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Wales and Great Britain
The article says:
 * By the two Acts, the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland—which at the time were separate states with separate legislatures, but with the same monarch—were, in the words of the Treaty, "United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain".

Where is Wales in that equation? Was Wales not included in Great Britain at the time or was it included in England (or some other possibility)? --MarSch (talk) 06:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * See Kingdom of England. Mutt Lunker (talk) 08:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Geographically the term "Great Britain" refers to the island which constitutes the mainland of England, Scotland and Wales. Wales was (and still is) considered a separate principality within the United Kingdom. However like Scotland and Ireland at the time it did not have a separate legislature, being governed directly by the British parliament in London. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it's in good faith but that's a rather confused and ambiguous reply (e.g., if you are talking about post union, England also did not have a separate legislation; if pre-union both Scotland and England did). No need to confuse matters: the simple answer to the question posed is that, pre-union, Wales had been incorporated into and was part of the Kingdom of England. Poetic reference to Wales as a principality is fairly commonplace but has had no constitutional basis since long before the 1707 union. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Repeal?
This seems to be a somewhat earth-shattering element to have been omitted from this article until now, if correct. Is it? Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've removed the change. Wikiain (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Suggested clarifications
Some suggested edits or expansion; the bulk of this article is great but I think it would benefit from simplifying the language and some points should be expanded. I'm happy to either put up suggestions or help out.

Lead section; can we tighten the language - a couple of people have mentioned that the wording is confusing, particularly the second paragraph. The reference to three attempts; 1667 is wrong but also debatable (see below).

Previous attempts; I don't think the section on James really explains why he wanted a Union and it matters since his attempt to unify the churches was a major spark in the Civil Wars.

Interegnum; this omits the Second and Third Civil Wars which were the direct result of the Kirk Party attempting to impose Union by restoring Charles I, then Charles II. Again, understanding why they wanted it is important (economics being one element).

Later attempts Impetus for this incorporating union came almost entirely from King William, who feared leaving Scotland open to a French invasion.

I don't think this is correct; William was sympathetic for various reasons but the impetus came from Scottish Episcopalians. Again, this distinction matters because it relates to divisions in 1707 plus the fact that the unlike previous attempts, the churches were kept separate. The balance between religion, politics and economics is what adds complexity to this event.

English perspective; I think this omits some very important elements.

Any thoughts? I can do suggested rewrites and then discuss; I can see there's been a lot of work put in but I always find a different perspective helps me and it could be made even better.

Robinvp11 (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Added some material and citations
A new article which presented some additional material to here has enabled partial editing of this article. Hope the adjustments help clarifying historian/current view of positions of the key parties in 1706/7. Kaybeesquared (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

G.N. Clark's assessment
The position of Scotland was certainly difficult as a result of the Darien scheme. Since G.N. Clark was English and in his assessment I only see a benefit for Scotland to accept the Hanoverians to avoid unwanted conflicts and difficult relations with England, it's hard for me to agree that what was earned was of "inestimable value". Scotland did not have many choices and it sounds like the choice to join in 1707 was of unparalleled value. Based on the facts, it appears to me Scotland just resigned itself to the idea of having to follow England into a union because things could not go worse in the early decades of the 1700s.

ICE77 (talk) 06:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Coat of Arms of England (1702-1707).svg
 * Coat of Arms of Scotland (1660-1689).svg