Bonnie Prince Charlie-The true picture.

[ANDY-J]

Charles Edward Stuart was a reckless and ambitious fortune hunter who had no real concern for the Scottish people.One of his main supporters,Cameron of Lochiel,on learning of the Prince's plans for a rebellion described it as'a rash and desperate undertaking'.The rebellion,by accident or design,was however well timed.Britain was heavily engaged in a continental war and the king was in Hanover,and the few successes which were achieved can be attributed to the incompetance of London politicians.
Lowlanders were universally hostile to Jacobitism and even many highlanders had to be coerced with threats of violence into adhering to the Jacobite cause.One highland laird,Cluny McPherson,stated that his choice was to be 'burnt or join'.At the end of the rebellion 3000 men(mostly Scots) were dead and many already impoverished highlanders were forced to endure misery and hardship.
The plain fact is that Bonnie Prince Charlie had a glaring inability to grasp political realities.The people of Scotland were beginning to reap the benefits of living in a constitutional monarchy with no strong centralised sovereign who demanded massive taxation.They simple did not relish the prospect of a return to the absolute monarchy of previous Stuart Kings.
The '45 rebellion had very little to do with patriotism.It was ill-conceived and reckless and it's chances of success were nil.Many Scots lives were lost for nothing.Scrape away the romantic myth and you find that Bonnie Prince Charlie was neither a hero nor a patriot.He was a reckless adventurer and it was unfortunate for the people of Scotland and in particular the highlands,that he ever set foot in this country.

I agree with almost everything you say, Andy. However I would like to add a few points.

It is true that there were Highlanders opposed to the Jacobites, but it is equally true that there were Lowlanders who were sympathetic, and there were Lowlanders and Highlanders who supported the rebellion not through a desire to see the restoration of the Stewarts but through a desire to end the Union. Many of these people fought with swords enscribed For Scotland and No Union. Why they did not stop at the border, I do not know but my theory is that they believed that only by taking their cause all the way could they hope to gain their independence. Maybe they'd made a deal with the Jacobite leadership.

The fact of large-scale opposition to the Jacobites in Scotland, including the Highlands, makes the actions of the British government after the cause was lost all the more despicable. The hated fourth stanza of the British national anthem makes no distinction; all Scots are branded. The anti-Scottish and anti-Highlander legislation made no distinctions between loyalist and rebels. The rapine, pillage and murder made no distinctions. The deportations made no distinctions.

The Jacobites were a curse on Scotland but the government made them martyrs and heroes. The government managed to win the war but they lost the peace when they turned their spite on Scotland, irrespective of individual actions. I have no time for romantic notions of the Jacobites but I respect the courage of the people who risked all to end the Union and I have nothing but contempt for a government which could treat its own people as the British government did in the aftermath.

[Karasu]

I've no real points to add to this informative post. I feel I'd be a fish out of water.

I just thought I'd say thanks to both of you for pointing out facts which are glossed over and over again by romantic fools. The wee effeminate Italian should never've been allowed to lead our people in this foolhardy cause, bringing the pain and misery he did. I do not wish to belittle the bravery, tenacity and courage produced by the men who fought on his side, but these abilities should have been placed on better endeavours.

Mata ne, Karasu (A Stewart peeved with an ancestor)

[ANDY-J]

Originally posted by Neil_Caple
I agree with almost everything you say, Andy. However I would like to add a few points.

It is true that there were Highlanders opposed to the Jacobites, but it is equally true that there were Lowlanders who were sympathetic, and there were Lowlanders and Highlanders who supported the rebellion not through a desire to see the restoration of the Stewarts but through a desire to end the Union. Many of these people fought with swords enscribed For Scotland and No Union. Why they did not stop at the border, I do not know but my theory is that they believed that only by taking their cause all the way could they hope to gain their independence. Maybe they'd made a deal with the Jacobite leadership.

The fact of large-scale opposition to the Jacobites in Scotland, including the Highlands, makes the actions of the British government after the cause was lost all the more despicable. The hated fourth stanza of the British national anthem makes no distinction; all Scots are branded. The anti-Scottish and anti-Highlander legislation made no distinctions between loyalist and rebels. The rapine, pillage and murder made no distinctions. The deportations made no distinctions.

The Jacobites were a curse on Scotland but the government made them martyrs and heroes. The government managed to win the war but they lost the peace when they turned their spite on Scotland, irrespective of individual actions. I have no time for romantic notions of the Jacobites but I respect the courage of the people who risked all to end the Union and I have nothing but contempt for a government which could treat its own people as the British government did in the aftermath.

It's true that many lowlanders supported the Jacobites yet it's probable that more Scots(many of them highlanders) fought in the Hanoverian army.Given the feudal and archaic nature of highland society can it be said with certainty that many Jacobites were fighting for ideological reasons rather than fulfilling a feudal obligation to their lord?Doubtless many of the Hanoverians were anti-union yet the prospect of a return to catholic absolutism was arguably less appealing to them than maintaining the union with England.Certainly many would have welcomed any opportunity to slaughter gaelic 'barbarians'whether the cause was justified or not.The English attempts to subjugate Scotland after the '45 were indeed despicable but the irony is that rather than destroying the Scottish nation they stimulated Scottish endeavour and innovation.In the enlightenment of the late eighteenth-century only France played a greater role than Scotland.The theories of Adam Smith shaped the government's economic policy,while David Hume was Britain's foremost philosopher and his works influenced the French philosophes such as Voltaire.The English upper classes lived in houses built by Scots- the Adams brothers,while Watt's steam engine was a key factor in launching the industrial revolution.This was a golden age for Scotland and it's questionable if any of this could have occured were Scotland not part of the United Kingdom.

Originally posted by ANDY-J
This was a golden age for Scotland and it's questionable if any of this could have occured were Scotland not part of the United Kingdom.

This is one of those "what if?" scenarios. The Scottish Enlightenment is often cited as justification for the Union, but the fact is we just don't know what the alternative might have been. An independent Scotland, left to its own devices might have disappeared into oblivion or it might have had an even greater flowering of knowledge and erudition. We just don't know.

[ANDY-J]

Neil,
No one can deny that our nation has had an influence in the world out of all proportion to our size.Scots are like the Jews-they're everywhere and this fact is entirely due to our being part of the British empire.It opened up a whole range of frontiers and possibilities which Scots with their natural endeavour were willing to exploit.I think if we had remained independent our economic position as a neighbour of an expanding imperial power would have been extremely weak and even although our countries were not formally unified England would still have exercised informal control over our internal affairs by financial and commercial means.We would in a sense have become an English colony lacking any say whatsoever in our own affairs.I think that given the political realities of the period union was regretably the only feasible option.