What if there had been no 1745 Rebellion?

[TheVoyageur]

From a geographical persepective, assuming that there was no 'rebellion', there would be a lot more thriving towns and communities up the western arm of Scotland with a lot more industry with, notably, a lot more distilleries on the west coast.

[TheScottishEconomist]

Originally posted by TheVoyageur
From a geographical persepective, assuming that there was no 'rebellion', there would be a lot more thriving towns and communities up the western arm of Scotland with a lot more industry with, notably, a lot more distilleries on the west coast.

No there would not be. Sorry but your lack of knowledge regarding the highlands is obvious. The population of the higlands greatly increased in the early 19t century (that is long after 1746/6). That however was based on the kelp industry which later collapsed.

The highlands - unlike the lowlands - was not capable of supporting industries, there were no natural resources to be exploited and improvements in agriculture meant that few people were needed to work the land.

It had nothing to do with Jacobites or any such thing.

Btw Sherbrooke, I am a bit busy at present but I will try and write a response to your above points as soon as I can.

Cheers.

[SherbrookeJacobite]

Originally posted by TheScottishEconomist

Btw Sherbrooke, I am a bit busy at present but I will try and write a response to your above points as soon as I can.

Cheers. [/b]

I understand - I am often in the same situation. I look forward to your attempt at a rebuttal

Slainte.

[Scottish_Republican]

[quote]Originally posted by TheScottishEconomist

The highlands - unlike the lowlands - was not capable of supporting industries, there were no natural resources to be exploited and improvements in agriculture meant that few people were needed to work the land.

Only a fraction of the Lowlands were coalfields.

[OurScotland]

Originally posted by TheScottishEconomist

No there would not be. Sorry but your lack of knowledge regarding the highlands is obvious. The population of the higlands greatly increased in the early 19t century (that is long after 1746/6). That however was based on the kelp industry which later collapsed.

I don't think you can rule out the effect of The 45 and Culloden from the subsequent Highland Clearances. Overall it may have been economics that caused them, but there was also a very strong underlying political issue in that the English government wanted to remove the thorn that the clans had become in their side.

Of course its not as simple as that, nothing ever is - there were plenty other factors. However, what seems to be coming through from this discussion is that some people think they are always right and that those who say otherwise are wrong. At the end of the day it all comes down to what you have read and what you want to believe, but in all the events being discussed you have to remember one thing - History is only fact until someone writes it down. There is no such thing as an accurate record of the events from hundreds of years ago. If someone wrote about them then they would only use the information they wanted to to make their point, which is something that is happening throughout this thread (and probably many others throughout Scotland.com)!

Of course, I may be wrong... as long as you all realise that doesn't mean to say you are right!

[SherbrookeJacobite]

[quote]Originally posted by OurScotland

Originally posted by TheScottishEconomist

No there would not be. Sorry but your lack of knowledge regarding the highlands is obvious. The population of the higlands greatly increased in the early 19t century (that is long after 1746/6). That however was based on the kelp industry which later collapsed.

I don't think you can rule out the effect of The 45 and Culloden from the subsequent Highland Clearances. Overall it may have been economics that caused them, but there was also a very strong underlying political issue in that the English government wanted to remove the thorn that the clans had become in their side.

The increase in the population was not because of the kelp industry. That would suggest immigration to the Highlands, which was not the reason for the increase in population. The kelp markets helped to keep people in the Highlands after they had been cleared from their traditional inland homes. Many people were moved to the coasts where kelping, along with crofting, allowed them to remain for a few more years, until, as SE pointed out the kelp industry collapsed. The population increases were natural - the removal of the people was anything but. People were removed, not so much for political reasons as economic. The Clans had long ceased to be a threat, and indeed were a major source of recruits to the British army. The Clansmen, who had occupied the land for centuries, were unable to generate the kind of profits necessary to match the rents offered by southern sheep farmers.
Thus the "agricultural improvements" were only improvements from the perspective of the landowner. Some of the out migration may have been inevitable - but that does not excuse the tactics used by some. Much rationalizing has been done over the years since to explain what was indefensible.

Of course its not as simple as that, nothing ever is - there were plenty other factors. However, what seems to be coming through from this discussion is that some people think they are always right and that those who say otherwise are wrong. At the end of the day it all comes down to what you have read and what you want to believe, but in all the events being discussed you have to remember one thing - History is only fact until someone writes it down. There is no such thing as an accurate record of the events from hundreds of years ago. If someone wrote about them then they would only use the information they wanted to to make their point, which is something that is happening throughout this thread (and probably many others throughout Scotland.com)!

Of course, I may be wrong... as long as you all realise that doesn't mean to say you are right!

Your point is valid. However, I have read accounts "from both sides" (actually there are probably more than two)of both the '45 and the Clearances, and formed my own opinions. It is fairly clear, when reading history, if the author has biases. They should be kept in mind as you read. It is difficult not to have opinions about historical events, particularly when your family was involved in them. There are a number of respected historians, who have no personal connections with the above mentioned events, who have reached the same conclusions.

[OurScotland]

Any bias isn't always obvious as most history quotes someone from an earlier time... and a lot of history is written well after the events so much is based on hearsay (although not so much with events of the last couple of hundred years or so!)

I am planning to read the Prebble books out of curiosity more than anything else... having heard so much about them it would be a shame to miss out! Do you have any other books that cover the period of the Risings and also the clearances that you would recommend?