An Introduction to Edinburgh history

This morning I gave a short talk on the history of Edinburgh, at the request of a friend. For various domestic reasons (nobody’s fault) there was little preparation time. I discovered, on arrival, that my audience would be a small number of highly educated and interested Chinese visitors. I did my best.

This is more or less what I said. The talk was not written beforehand, though I had worked out the structure. It occurs to me that it might be of more general interest.

*   *   *   *   *

Good morning and welcome. I am a history teacher, born and brought up in London, who moved here forty years ago. My family and I like it so much that we have settled here. I have been asked to introduce the history of the city in twenty minutes. This means that I shall leave out far more than I include. So there is no point bothering about that. Also, I should make it clear that there is nothing official about this presentation. It is a personal view.

I reckon that it is useful for the visitor to think of four Edinburghs.

One is the Old Town. You will know from the map of Scotland that Edinburgh on the east coast and Glasgow on the west are very close together. Between the two is a trench of flattish land, with big hills to north and south. The geological collapse of this trench, millions of years ago, was accompanied by some volcanic activity, so that round here we have a lot of small but steep-sided hills. There is the Castle Rock, of course. Also Arthur’s Seat, Calton Hill, the Bass Rock and so on. These rocky hills were ideal for defence, and it says something about life all those centuries ago that defence was more important than water. People settled on the Castle Rock because they felt safer. From the Rock the glaciers of the Ice Age left a slope running away east, down to where Holyrood Palace is now, and this became the Old Town, with its wall.

The second Edinburgh is the eighteenth century expansion. At last, in the 1750s, there was no likelihood of invasion from England and no likelihood of civil war and so people of vision began to think of building outside the city wall. Because of all those steep little hills this was quite an engineering challenge, and you will see lots of signs of earth-moving and levelling and the building of bridges. There used to be a lake, the Nor’ Loch, where Princes Street Gardens are now; that had to go. They built on the South Side, where George Square is now. They built the First New Town, and then the Second New Town. These two are often run together and called The New Town. I think this is a mistake. The First New Town, Princes Street, George Street and Queen Street, was built to be as different as possible from the Old Town. As a result the streets had to be straight and wide, the houses had to be low, and there was to be no decoration. One famous citizen of the time, Henry Cockburn, said of the New Town “What a site nature gave us for our New Town. What meanness in its execution!” But then the Second New Town, below Queen Street Gardens, was built with a different sort of plan. Great architects were encouraged to build streets and buildings of grandeur and beauty. Today the First New Town has been rebuilt and rebuilt, with modern shops and hotels. The Second New Town is strictly protected by planning regulations and is preserved as a great architectural site.

The third Edinburgh is the great modern expansion that started in about 1850 and is still going on. Tourists don’t come to see it, but it is where most of us live. It involved hundreds of thousands of people, and a great deal of fresh water and sewage and new parks, and shopping centres and housing schemes. However, thanks to geography Edinburgh cannot have a huge urban sprawl. The hills to the south and the sea to the north are never far away. Also, you will notice as you look around that sometimes the nineteenth and twentieth century development has been allowed to change the Old and New Towns.

The fourth Edinburgh is too often forgotten. This is Edinburgh by the sea. Most great cities in Scotland developed partly as ports, built on the sea for trade. Edinburgh was built for defence, on a rock. But a port developed, at Leith, and when Robert I – that’s Robert the Bruce – gave Edinburgh a new charter, he gave Leith to the city. Leithers did not all approve of this and in the 1830s, when Britain’s cities were reshaped by burgh reform, Leith became a separate burgh. But the lawyers of Edinburgh are a powerful lot – consider how recently they managed to get Scotland’s parliament in this city, not in Glasgow – and in 1929 they managed once again to have Leith brought under the government of Edinburgh. So Edinburgh is a sea-side city, and trade, fishing and so on are part of its history. So is relaxing by the sea, at Portobello or Cramond.

I have described four different bits that make up Edinburgh. I would now like to use a few dates to help fix the history. There is no need to remember them precisely

In the 1130s that great king David I decided that the people who lived below the Castle should be a chartered burgh, with a provost and baillies, a privileged market and so on. He was the founder of Edinburgh, if anyone is. He also set up the abbey, Holyrood Abbey, at the other end of the hill that leads down from the Castle.

In the 1320s Robert the Bruce had finally driven the English invaders out of Scotland, which included recapturing Edinburgh Castle in 1314 when Thomas Randolph led a small party in the dark to climb the rock. This was when he refounded the city, and issued it with a new charter. [Question: Yes, this is the story that you can see some of in the film “Braveheart”]

In the 1560s there was the revolution that led to Mary Queen of Scots being driven out and Scotland becoming Protestant. The most important person in this was John Knox. It is very hard to know now which Scots lords were genuinely Protestant and which saw the Reformation as a chance to get money, land and power; probably a bit of both. As far as Edinburgh was concerned it meant that the monks were thrown out of Holyrood Abbey and the city council got control of the whole Royal Mile, and of the land that had formerly been run by the Canons of Holyrood Abbey.

In 1603 there was one of those accidents of marriage, birth and death that can happen with royal families. The King of Scotland, James VI, became James I of England as well. For ages the English royal family had schemed for this to happen the other way round, and it never did. That’s by the way. The point is that with the same person as king of both countries there was hope that the interminable wars between the two would cease. It did not work out quite like that. There were still too many wars and civil wars for over a hundred years. [Question: Yes. Just as in Hong Kong and China you have one government and two systems, so it was in England and Scotland.]

In 1707 the two countries officially joined to become one country, the United Kingdom. Historians have been arguing ever since whether this was a good thing or not. I doubt if they will ever agree. But those who say it was an English take-over of Scotland are definitely wrong. Yes England was and is bigger, richer and stronger than Scotland, so was always likely to be the dominant partner. But it was a partnership. The main concern of the English government in 1707 was to make sure that Scotland did not become an ally in war of France. In return for that guarantee they were quite happy for Scotland to keep its own legal system, its own education system and its own church. Even today, when Elizabeth II is in England she is head of the church, as Elizabeth I established centuries ago. In Scotland she has no special position in the church, and when she stays in Holyrood or Balmoral she visits the local parish church more or less as an ordinary person, and plays no part in running the church here.

Finally, between 1794 and 1815 there were the great wars against Napoleon’s France. There are often forgotten. But they involved everyone and went on a long time, at a very important period in Edinburgh’s history. On Calton Hill you can see great monuments to Waterloo, to Admiral Nelson, to the dead in the French wars. Henry Cockburn, whom I have mentioned, spent many nights as a volunteer guarding the Martello Tower that was built for defence in Leith. There was a real fear of French invasion at the very time when the Second New Town was being planned and the city was still enjoying being called The Athens of the North.

This is to be a short talk. But before I stop I would like to suggest three things that have affected the character of the city.

One is its closeness to England. This has been for bad and for good. For all those centuries of war it was far too close to be safe from invading armies, supported by the powerful English navy. Far too often Edinburgh was a war zone, with gunfire in the streets, and explosions, and the clash of weapons and cobble stone slippery with blood. There are many cities in the world that are war-zones today. Edinburgh was too often like that. Sometimes it was English invasion; sometimes it was civil wars. But then for the last three hundred years Edinburgh has not been some remote provincial city beyond the sea or beyond the mountains. It was easy for people and books and ideas to come and go to everyone’s benefit. During the Napoleonic Wars, which I mentioned, there could be no Grand Tour of Europe for enterprising young men; it was to Edinburgh they came, and the University flourished.

A second is that the city has managed, for many reasons, to become the leading place for Scotland’s professional life. This is where the new parliament was set up. This is where the General Assembly of the Kirk meets. Edinburgh solicitors can call themselves “Writers to the Signet” and put WS after their names. This can be very irritating to Glasgow, which is certainly bigger, and probably a lot richer; but this flourishing professional life certainly is part of Edinburgh’s character. It has – as has Glasgow – several universities and teaching hospitals.

A third feature that seems to me to give character to Edinburgh’s history is a certain democratic way of thinking. I am not talking of politics. Until the 1830s reforms Edinburgh’s two Members of Parliament were chosen by 33 people. But in the Old Town everyone lived close, often on top of each other on the same stair in the same building, so that the rich, the middling sort and the poor would meet every day and know each other. There are plenty of stories of the eighteenth century, when the Scottish Enlightenment was flourishing, of gatherings in pubs where great men of power, learned philosophers of international reputation, ordinary city professionals, and any local who could afford to stand a round, would drink and talk and argue together. Some attempt was made to keep this in the New Town, with richer streets and poorer streets side by side. Now I’m afraid much of this has been lost and in Edinburgh there are “good areas” and “bad areas”, as there are in most big cities. But something of this democratic spirit remains.

I have gone on far too long. I hope you enjoy your visit to Edinburgh, and I do hope it includes a walk down the Royal Mile. We have mentioned the Scottish Enlightenment. You will see a statue of David Hume, the innovative philosopher. You will see a statue of Adam Smith, who invented the science of economics. Go into St Giles and see the memorial window to Robert Burns, a great poet. Further down, see a statue of Robert Fergusson, who died far too young, but whom Burns so much admired. And at the bottom of the hill go to Dynamic Earth and learn about James Hutton, the father of modern geology. He was the first, at least in Europe, to look at the way rock strata lay on each other – on Arthur’s Seat particularly – and start to reconstruct how they might have been formed not thousands but millions of years ago.

In fairness it should be noted that they were not all sons of Edinburgh. Burns came from Ayrshire, and Adam Smith was born in Kirkaldy and did much of his work in Glasgow. The great engineer and developer of steam power, James Watt, is of the west of Scotland, and the philosopher Thomas Reid, whose “Common Sense” lies behind those famous sentences “We hold these truths to be self-evident” and “It is a truth universally acknowledged”, was at Aberdeen. The Scottish Enlightenment was not just an Edinburgh phenomenon. Nevertheless, I have been very lucky to settle here for so long, and I am sure you will enjoy your visit.

I have been allowed to add a little advertisement. Since I retired I have done some writing, and I’ll mention three of my pieces here, in case you would like to know more. They are available on Amazon Kindle.

“Getting to Know Edinburgh” http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_10?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&field-keywords=getting%20to%20know%20edinburgh&sprefix=Getting+to%2Cdigital-text%2C391

“An Introduction to the Scottish Enlightenment” http://www.amazon.co.uk/Introduction-Scottish-Enlightenment-Lectures-History-ebook/dp/B0097ROZ0S/ref=pd_sim_kinc_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=0BG00Z1AC21VP8RHNMSM

“Bonnie Dundee and the First Jacobite Rebellion” http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jacobite-Rebellion-Lectures-Scottish-History-ebook/dp/B0097SO8N6/ref=pd_sim_kinc_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=1C5B6SF66NXD2RMMNAPT

Introducing "Getting to know Edinburgh"

Nipping off to the shops as early spring sun made Edinburgh magical. I thought “I must write about this”. So I did, and a guide book gradually took shape. The publication date kept being postponed. It involved a lot of research, and a lot of walking, and a traffic accident. But it is finished at last. It has been fascinating to do.

My method has been to do the walks and then write about them, always from memory, resorting to research only to plug the gaps. This may have led to some errors in the history, but at least it is original, not copied. I have, of course, left out as much as I have included, but there is more than enough here for a week’s holiday, or entertainment on a train journey. The last task was to take a photo for the cover.

In case any one is interested in buying the book here is the link to it.

 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Getting-Know-Edinburgh-George-Harris-ebook/dp/B00PH9NW0E/ref=pd_rhf_gw_p_img_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=03YNRJWSV5JGEB53C78P
 

 I have added the introduction and the contents page to this post. I hope you think it looks more, not less attractive. One of the first people to read it said he liked it because it was “witty”. What a nice comment.

*   *  *   *   *

.  

To the Reader

In 2014 I began my forty-first year as a resident of Edinburgh (always the South Side). We arrived in an old black Riley, up the A7, so that I could take up a post teaching history. Edward Heath was Prime Minister, and was in big trouble with the Trades Unions. No schools owned computers – they were far too big and expensive (the computers, not the schools) – and some of the city’s milk was delivered by horse and cart. It was professionally necessary, as well as a pleasure, to learn more and more about the history of the city, the character of the city, the buildings of the city, the ways through and round the city.

I imagine you, with your e-reader, staying for a few days and wanting them to be as fulfilling and purposeful as possible. Hence this book. It is the book I would like if I were here on holiday for a week: not too long; not infused with cynical nostalgia about how good it used to be before vulgar trippers like you came along; and not packed with information I shall never want about shopping, restaurants, times of trains and so on. (I can find shops for myself, thanks, and train times change.) It only has stuff that interests me, but I am sure our interests overlap. There is a lot of history, a lot of museums, a lot of art galleries, and a lot of tramping the streets.

Edinburgh is fairly well provided with information boards, wall plaques and so on. I have referred to a few of them, but on the whole I assume that if you can read this, you can read them too, and have avoided duplication. Since this is an e-book I have also included links to the official web-sites of the main sites. These are informative and will be kept up to date.

I have been here forty years. I am going to indulge in some total immersion in all the best this great city has to offer, and I am going to share it with you in a series of tours. Friends and critics who know Edinburgh will no doubt point out important sites and sights that I have left out. To them I say “Write your own book!” To visitors I will say without apology that this is not, and is not meant to be, a work of reference. Do not be disappointed that this is not what it does not pretend to be. Do get yourself a work-of-reference guide as well and visit the Tourist Information Centre above Waverley Station.. This book of mine makes much of my particular interests – history, fine art, literature, and town and country walks.

You do not, of course, have to follow my routes in order, or even follow them at all (though if you do you will end the week with a mind enlarged and calf muscles in trim from much walking). I like to think of you reading this on the train as you journey here, and then picking out bits day by day. But perhaps you will follow it from beginning to end; if so, you deserve a medal. One word of warning. Publication of this book was delayed when I walked in front of a moving car and was lucky to escape permanent injury. Do take care on road crossings.

There is no end to the other books you could buy; there are plenty of book shops in Edinburgh, not to mention the various museum and gallery shops. You can enjoy browsing, and spending money. I am just going to mention five, which you may not find on the shelves, but are worth looking for.

One is “Edinburgh” by David Daiches. I see that at this moment I could buy a used copy on-line for £3.49. It is written in a pleasant style and is particularly strong on literary associations.

The second is “Memorials of His Time” by Henry Cockburn. It seems to be available at a range of prices, depending on edition. It is one of the best history books ever written, and describes the city from the 1780s to the 1820s. This covers one of the most intensely exciting times in Edinburgh’s history, though on the night when there was supposed to be a riot of Paisley weavers and Cockburn rather sheepishly enrolled as a special constable, “the whole city was a silent as the grave, or even as Peebles.”. Expect to find some quotations appearing here and there in this guide.

The third is “Edinburgh: An Illustrated Architectural Guide” by Charles McKean, which not only contains more factual information per ounce than any other pocket-sized book I can think of, it also has hundreds of photos. It is not, at the moment, cheaply available, but it is worth the money.

The fourth is “The Capital of the |Mind: How Edinburgh changed the World” by James Buchan. This comprehensive and fascinating look at the eighteenth century, the phenomenon known as the Scottish Enlightenment, is fairly recently published, and readily available.

Finally there is “Layers of Edinburgh” by Eleanor Harris. This is an illustrated historical map of the Old Town. The author is a serious artist and a serious historian and the result is everything you want to know on one sheet of A3 paper. The drawings and colour make it a perfect souvenir. You will find it here: https://www.etsy.com/uk/listing/67310796/layers-of-edinburgh-an-illustrated

I will also mention a Facebook page: Lost Edinburgh. The huge and growing collection of old photographs is fascinating.

For getting around I recommend the Lothian bus service. If you expect to make more than two journeys in a day, ask for a day ticket. Because I am very old I have a free bus pass – one of my best perks. By the time this book is finished the trams will be running, but I do not think their route will help you much.

In this guide I use the points of the compass very frequently. If you remember that the Royal Mile and Princes Street run East – West, that the Firth of Forth is to the North and that the Pentland Hills are to the South you are unlikely to go far wrong.

Getting to know Edinburgh: Contents

Introduction: To the Reader

Note that there are descriptions of many things to see as you walk between each of the main sites that do not have a separate sub-heading. These come after a sub-heading and before you arrive at the main site listed.

Note also that I have included links to web-sites for many of the main attractions.

1. Route One:

• Calton Hill
• The National Gallery
• The Writers’ Museum
• Lawnmarket

2. Route Two: 

• Greyfriars
• The National Museum
• The High Street
• The High Kirk of Saint Giles

 3. Route Three:

• Holyrood Palace
• Canongate Kirk
• The Museum of Edinburgh
• The People’s Story Museum
• Canongate – Netherbow – High Street

4. Route Four:

• Ramsay Garden
• Princes Street Gardens
• The Castle

5. Route Five:

• The First New Town,
• The Second New Town
• The Portrait Gallery

6. Route Six:

• Lothian Road,
• The Canal
• Toll Cross and Portsburgh
• The Grassmarket
• The Cowgate and the Flodden Wall

7. Route Seven:

• Morningside
• Bruntsfield
• The Meadows

8. Route Eight:

• Canonmills
• The Water of Leith
• The Botanical Gardens
• The Gallery of Modern Art

9. Route Nine:

• Salisbury Crags
• Dynamic Earth 
• The Scottish Parliament

10. A few suggestions for other things to do

• A seaside resort
• An open-top bus trip
• A mountain walk
• Edinburgh Zoo
• The Royal Yacht
• A boat trip
• An urban farm
• Saughton Rose Garden
• The Sea-life Centre
• A day in Glasgow
• Blackford Hill

Creationtide explained

During September I have been using the Twitter hashtag #Creationtide. This is an article explaining what it meant that I wrote for our church magazine at St John's, Edinburgh, reprinted by kind permission of the editor. This is the link to the magazine: http://www.stjohns-edinburgh.org.uk/get-involved/cornerstone-magazine.html

I have been asked to explain Creationtide. This in my capacity as Convenor of the Green Ginger Group, which exists to force the decision-makers of St John's to consider environmental issues every time they face a choice. Some churches, I have noticed, call it Creationtime.

One strand in Western thinking, frequently the dominant strand in Christianity, has been to regard Creation as a pyramid with the human race at the top. Everything exists to help the human race. The value of everything is measured by it usefulness to the human race. It is possible to derive this wrong interpretation from a misreading of the Book of Genesis. It received a considerable boost in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, for the science of those days sometimes seemed to be about humanity establishing control over Creation.

This was never the only strand of thinking. In the wonderful last section of Book of Job, for example, the complete independence of God's Creation from human convenience is asserted. This is one of the messages to be found in the story of Jonah, which we studied in Lent. And the twenty-first century scientist, like the modern ecologist and the modern theologian, is more likely to see the value of every item of Creation for its own sake, the unknowable vastness and complexity of Creation, the inter-relationship of all the pieces and so on. It was not an accident that our theme in 2013 brought forth respectful praise of midges and ticks as well as of pretty, lovable animals.

Scientists now are in broad agreement that the human race (and much life on Earth) is experiencing a massive ecological crisis, facing mass extinctions caused by pollution, climate change and so on. We have to improve our relationship with Creation, and get rid of short-term selfishness.

Creationtide, devised in 1989 is adopted by more and more churches all over the world. It is September 1 to October 4^th , climaxing in Harvest Festival and in the Feast of St Francis. All the resources of the church are used to get us to think responsibly about Creation. More knowledge, less selfish attitudes, mutual respect, wonder and changed behaviour are all part of it.

Every year at St John's we have a theme to focus our studies. This year it is the rocks of which the earth is made. By the time you read this Creationtide will be well advanced. Do take advantage of this inspiring season, to be part of making things better.

Edinburgh, as described by Sir Walter Scott in "Marmion"

            

            Still on the spot Lord Marmion stay’d,

            For fairer scene he ne’er survey’d.

               When sated with the martial show

               That peopled all the plain below,

               The wandering eye could o’er it go,

               And mark the distant city glow

                  With gloomy splendour red;

               For on the smoke-wreaths, huge and slow,

               That round her sable turrets flow,

                  The morning beams were shed,

               And ting’d them with a lustre proud,

               Like that which streaks a thunder-cloud.

            Such dusky grandeur cloth’d the height,

            Where the huge Castle holds its state,

               And all the steep slope down,

            Whose ridgy back heaves to the sky,

            Pil’d deep and massy, close and high,

               Mine own romantic town!

            But northward far, with purer blaze,

            On Ochil mountains fell the rays,

            And as each heathy top they kiss’d

            It gleam’d a purple amethyst.

            Yonder the shores of Fife you saw;

            Here Preston Bay and Berwick Law:

               And broad between them roll’d,

            The gallant Frith the eye might note,

            Whose islands on its bosom float,

               Like emeralds chased in gold.

September 19th. The Morning After

Yesterday we in Scotland had an important referendum. Those of you who read my previous post will know that I am not an enthusiast for referendums. Some of you will know that I got run over (my fault) soon after writing it, so maybe that was a judgement. Be that as it may. This recent referendum in Scotland has had some excellent consequences. There has been a widespread, thoughtful and committed involvement in serious politics by an overwhelming majority of the electorate, including some young people new to voting. The YES campaign developed a vision for the future which included many inspiring social and political reforms. The NO campaign was drawn into trying to match these, and so the whole country has been enthused by the need do more, soon, to make Scotland and the UK a better place.

This does not pretend to be an academic paper, and is woefully short of necessary detail. I like to hope that it will contribute to debate and to thinking and to progress of a modern sort.

To my way of thinking there are three mighty issues which we should tackle, perpetuating the energy generated by the referendum.

One is that the widespread cynicism about politics and politicians must be eliminated. There are two things that must be done to achieve this. The first is that politicians must stop behaving in ways that invite cynicism. All politicians in our democracy are concerned with winning the next election. All politicians are concerned with wealth creation. All leading politicians are a bit ambitious (thank goodness, or there would be no one to do the job). As a result some politicians (not all) behave in ways which invite cynicism. I'll mention expenses scandals and spin-doctoring – but, as I said, this is not a detailed paper. We must use our energy to support those who want to outlaw dishonest, selfish, arrogant behaviour.

The second way of combating cynicism is for the many politicians who are honest and able and unselfishly dedicated to the common good to do more to project their correct image to voters. The media have a heavy responsibility here. If you watch or listen to obscure channels outside prime time, or if you read long articles in journals written in small print, or read the best political memoirs, you soon learn of politicians of great ability and considerable knowledge who are able to have sensible discussions about ways of tackling our problems. But in headlines, and on prime time you see would-be celebrities showing off their skill with words, romping in the bear-garden of party-political competition and indulging in point-scoring. (This leaves out serious scandals which erupt from time to time.) The better sort of politician (the majority) need to work harder at showing they are the people we want to do the job. Journalists could help them – whilst still subjecting them to rigorous scrutiny.

Incidentally, there is a supplementary point that involves Scotland – and any other devolved part of the UK. A journalist at a party once told me after a few drinks (you see I am not claiming this as proof) that at the Holyrood Parliament, where he worked, the SNP members were much the most interesting, because the best young members of Lib, Lab and Con all had ambitions to be successful in UK politics. For devolution to work as it should be need some “big hitters” to stay working in devolved politics, or return to them after a spell in London.

The second mighty issue that needs to be tackled with redoubled energy is the issue of equality and poverty. Anyone who professes an easy solution is probably a charlatan. But again and again during the referendum campaign I saw this issue raised. Please do not stop raising it. At the moment the poorest in our community have a very raw deal This is unjustifiable. Do something about it, with energy.

The third mighty issue is the one I am personally involved in, in a little way, which is the whole question of sustainability, climate change and mass extinction. There are some UN summits on climate change about to happen. There are People's Climate Change Marches designed to show the democratic politicians that there is support (votes) to be won by pursuing sensible policies. Devote to them the energy and enterprise and unselfish desire for the common good that illuminated the referendum debates.

There are many other important issues in politics. I have selected three, acutely aware that I have omitted many – notably international issues of diplomacy, peace and war. Nevertheless, the main point of this post is the stress that all the energy and enthusiasm generated by the referendum will have been a waste of time if our democracy does not take the opportunity to build on it and to move on.

The truth about referendums

[Pedant watch: Referendums is the correct plural when the word is used as a gerund. The plural is referenda when the word is used as a gerundive – in other words, hardly ever.]

I wrote this post in 2014, well before the referendum about membership of the EU. It argues pretty strongly that referendums are bad democracy. There are many better ways of organising democracy. Nothing that has happened in relation to the Brexit affair has changed my mind at all. However, there has recently been a referendum in Ireland about abortion that has been widely praised as a success. In the Irish case I was pleased by the result, and of course referendums always seem all right if you happen to like the result; but that does not make them good democracy. However, I will temper my disapproval of referendums a little by admitting a few positive points.

1. Is the result pretty overwhelming? The recent Irish one was 66.4% against 33.6%. As a way of forcing a smallish minority to accept change they have their uses. Though I do think it would be better if politicians accepted the responsibility for making necessary reforms without referendums. In the case of the Brexit referendum one of the silliest and nastiest things is the way many politicians, and some journalists talk about "the will of the people", when a narrow victory establishes no such thing. In fact even a largish victory like the Irish one does not establish that. A study of history leaves no doubt that "the will of the people" is a very dangerous concept used by demagogues to crush opposition - often because they cannot win an argument.

2. Is the only alternative to a referendum civil war and violence? Then there might be something to be said for one.

But really what we need is politicians who put party before self and country before party.

*    *    *    *    *    

This post had better start with a health warning. If you are a school pupil working towards an exam – Higher Modern Studies or AS Politics – then this post would not be a good answer, because it is going to lack balance; and balance is a key component of the mark-schemes in those subjects. But I am too old to sit exams any more (I used to teach Modern Studies and Politics) so I do not have to write in a balanced way. I can tell the truth. And the truth about referendums is that they are bad things and democratic government works better without them.

Yes, they are democratic in some ways, and I am an enthusiast for democracy. But they are a thoroughly unsatisfactory way of translating the wishes of voters into action. I was thinking about writing this post before the recent shenanigans in eastern Ukraine, but they surely strengthen my argument. The Putins of this world like referendums. Enough said!

In the first place, they have a very dark history of dishonesty, intrigue and tyranny. All through the nineteenth and early twentieth century they were used by tyrants and dictators to prop up their rule. Napoleon I had one. Hitler had one. Cavour used them. Napoleon's was rigged by his brother. Cavour, in Sicily, used ballot papers with “Si” [Yes] already printed on them. There is a famous scene in the novel “The Leopard” by Giuseppe di Lampedusa that depicts the dishonest count in one Sicilian village – behind closed doors, by a supporter of the new regime, who announces a 100% “Si”. Well, that is a fictionalised version of events, but I have never read of it being challenged. Hitler's took place after the Nazis were well established, with a reputation for murdering opponents. It took courage to vote “Nein”, and over 90% did vote “Ja”.

One trick used by these crafty manipulators of democracy was to offer no alternative to the answer they wanted. Do you want Victor Emanuel to be King – Yes or No? Do you accept Hitler as Fuhrer? - Yes or No? That was not a democratic choice. Democratic choices are what we have at election-time, with a range of alternatives: Labour or Conservative or Lib Dem or Green or SNP. (I live in Scotland).

In the UK we have been using referendums with increasing frequency since the 1970s. No mainstream UK politician, as far as I know, has been anything other than a believer in liberal democracy, and there has been no intention, yet, of making them the excuse for the removal of liberties. However, it appears to me (and I am not naturally cynical, despite a life-time studying history) that our leaders have only used them for base political purposes; never for good democratic reasons.

For example, Harold Wilson faced the prospect of a split Labour Party over the issue of Europe – the Common Market as it was called in those days. So he held a referendum so that his opponents could campaign heartily against him but then, when they lost the referendum, be able to fall back into line with their honour intact. You will have noticed how many referendums on European issues are discussed and promised these days. This is because both the Labour and the Conservative parties are deeply spit over Europe and promising a referendum in certain circumstances (and then, if possible, finding an excuse not to have one) is one way of papering over the cracks.

This is despite the fact that the matters in dispute – the European constitution, human rights, currency arrangements, trade regulations – are mind-bogglingly complex. Hardly any of the voters will understand them (I do not claim to myself) and they are quite unsuited to simple Yes/No or In/Out decisions. The Conservatives are promising to promise an In/Out Referendum after the next election. If we get to that point imagine the simplistic newspaper headlines, the late-night discussion programmes that hardly anyone watches, the cosmopolitan smoke-screens and the Little England ranting. No voters will study, or understand, the terms of the treaties in detail.

The way parliamentary democracy works is that we elect people who have the time and the energy and the interest to become expert enough on matters of complexity to make our decisions for us. If we think they are doing it wrong we can chuck them out, but that is quite different from thinking that we could do their job for them. A reputable Mori poll just the other day found that people's perception, and the facts, on matters that affect public policy are wildly diffferent. For example: Perception - £24 of every £100 paid in benefits is fraudulently claimed; Fact - £0.70p For example: Perception - 15% of girls under 16 become pregnant; Fact – 0.6%. In referendums vital decisions are made by voters with that level of ignorance. (I am not being patronising here. I include myself in this, I could no more give an informed opinion on matters of high finance than I could on pig-breeding.) In the heat of a referendum campaign the media cannot be trusted to give full, balanced coverage (Many journalists will, but how can those ones be identified?) and politicians certainly can't.

To make matters worse, the simple yes/no format of referendums is all too likely to give rise to TV head-to-head debates between party leaders. These have about as much validity in the democratic process as trial by combat to the judicial system. If the issues are important they must not be decided on which leader has the best TV appearance, which leader has the best debating skills, or which leader has the best back-up team to provide training for the debate.

Another feature of referendums that runs counter to liberal democracy at its best is that they lead to a tyranny of the majority over the minority. Perhaps that is better than the other way round, but it does not have to happen at all. When decisions are taken by a parliamentary process they can be discussed and adjusted at massive length as they are being taken, they can be reviewed by second chamber, and they can be fairly easily repealed if they turn out to have been a mistake. But with referendums, the winner takes all, and for ever. 51% of those who vote can over-rule the wishes of the 49% who lose, with no subtleties or adjustments allowed.

This is made worse by the fact that referendums often involve low turn-outs. When Wales was told in 1997 that it had to vote on whether to have an Assembly or not, roughly 50% did not vote and roughly 49% of those who did vote voted no. As a result Wales got an Assembly even though nearly three-quarters of their electorate had not voted for one.

Enthusiasts will say that non-voters don't count, that their apathy excludes them from the democratic process and so on. This may be true in practice, but it is a bad thing, and bad democracy. The non-voters may not be apathetic. They may not like either of the stark choices on the ballot paper. They may feel reluctant to play the party-political games of politicians. They may feel unqualified to judge on the matter. But if the subject is one of great importance there ought to be a mechanism for taking their views into account; referendums offer none.

Sometimes politicians to hold referendums to avoid a party split. Sometimes they hold them when the couldn't care less about the result. (In the 1990s several cities in England were asked whether they wanted elected mayors or not.) Sometimes they use them to pretend that they are making concessions when actually they aren't. (Do you remember that referendum on whether we should have a rather feeble and ineffective type of Proportional Representation?). Sometimes they use them because their opponents have backed them into a corner where to say “We won't have a referendum” sounds undemocratic and feeble. Sometimes they have them because they are pretty certain to get the result they want. Sometimes they have them to abdicate their responsibility for making tough decisions.

Our governing classes are, thank goodness, usually able to dig their heels in and say “No. We won't have a referendum. We will do what we were elected to do and take responsibility for policy”. (One can mention the issue of capital punishment as an example). When they do offer a referendum, beware.

A Brief Explanation of the Treaty of Union

The Treaty of Union between Scotland and England came into effect on May 1^st 1707. Here is a rapid blog-post making one or two points about it.

The people who ruled England at the time wanted the Union urgently. They did not want to conquer Scotland. They were totally unimpressed by the old arguments about sovereignty Henry VIII and Edward I had used to justify invasion. They loathed the memory of Oliver Cromwell, who had carried out a forcible unification half a century earlier. But they did want Union urgently.

They were embroiled in a long and intense war with France that was all tied up with the effects of the so-called “Glorious” Revolution of 1688, and with the dynastic ambitions of Louis XIV. They had succeeded in getting rid of the Catholic, and increasingly anti-parliamentary James II (VII in Scotland) and securing a law that all future monarchs of England had to be Protestant. James had been replaced with Louis XIV’s most implacable enemy, William of Orange. Since 1688 England was beginning to consolidate her position as one of Europe’s significant powers, with a “modern” government, a fairly stable financial sector and the beginnings of an overseas empire.

This was now all threatened. The Protestant royal line was dying out without heirs. Parliament had picked the Electors of Hanover (pretty remote dynastically) as successors. But the Scottish parliament might choose a different successor. Since 1603 Scotland and England had had the same monarch. Thanks to the great civil wars of the 1640s, and the Cromwell episode, this had not resulted in universal peace, but otherwise it removed the chances of English invasions of Scotland (massively destructive for Scotland) or of Scots alliances with France (massively worrying for England). Now this might change. The Scottish parliament might choose a different heir - presumably James Edward Stuart, son of James VII and II and a client (pawn?) of Louis XIV.

A few years earlier an Irish soldier of fortune, Colonel Hooke, had come up with a simple scheme for buying the Scottish elections so as to secure a Jacobite majority in the Scottish Parliament. He argued that, with so few voters, mostly poor and corruptible, it would be a lot cheaper than fitting out an invasion fleet. Louis did not adopt the plan, but it showed the danger.

So, the people running England badly wanted the Union, so as to prevent once and for all any idea of a separate Scottish foreign policy. Nothing else mattered. They were prepared to give the Scottish decision-makers (no referendums or popular elections in those days) any number of sweeteners. The Law, the Kirk, the education system, all remained in Scottish hands. A chunk of money (“The Equivalent”) was set aside to compensate Scotland for the losses incurred by the Darien Scheme. Arguing about what tax and finance arrangements would be best went on in 1707 in a fog of uncertainty – just as arguments in 2014 do. Historians are still arguing about how much Scotland benefitted economically from the Union in the short and medium terms. (Let’s leave the very long term out of it. Too much changed to make a calculation possible). The English Empire, with all its money-making benefits (mostly slave-related) would be opened to enterprising Scots.

For understandable reasons of national feeling a large proportion of influential Scots were strongly against. In 1705 the English government reminded them that there could be sticks as well as carrots and passed The Aliens Act, which, roughly speaking said: “OK. If you want to be a separate country, see what it feels like” and all cross-border traders faced utter ruin.

The debates in the Scottish Parliament and in the country were impassioned and heart-felt. It seems probable that, had there been a referendum, Union would have been rejected. The English government thought that they faced a national emergency in the middle of a total war. (The Battle of Ramillies had been the year before the Treaty. The Battle of Oudenarde was to take place the year after.) As a result they had no qualms about using the various dirty tricks available in 1707 – of which the discreet bribery, with money, jobs or promises, of key figures was the standard one.

And so the Treaty was passed, with rioting in the streets. “Here’s an end to an auld sang”

*   *   *  *   *

Two of my published Kindle pieces on Amazon relate to this period, (though they do not deal with the Treaty of Union directly). They cost 0.88p in the UK and equivalents elsewhere. They are longer than this blog-post, but still brief enough for, let us say, a long commute.

“The ‘Glorious’ Whig Revolution 1670 -1720” http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Glorious-Whig-Revolution-1670-1720-ebook/dp/B00FI245V0/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1399020708&sr=1-1&keywords=The+vicar+of+bray

“Bonnie Dundee and the First Jacobite Rebellion” http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jacobite-Rebellion-Lectures-Scottish-History-ebook/dp/B0097SO8N6/ref=pd_sim_kinc_10?ie=UTF8&refRID=1BFA2840ASW6KE44CSFM