The Herald editorial is concerned with ‘how complicated a business it would be to disentangle the government of Scotland from that of the rest of the UK.’ (Thursday May 30th.)

 In a strange piece of historical serendipity 300 years ago (today), June 1st  1713, the Earl of Seafield made a motion in the House of Lords ‘that represented the grievances of the Scotch nation’. The motion concluded ;

‘That since the Union between the two nations had not those good effect as were expected and hoped for from it, he therefore moved that leave might be given to bring in a bill for dissolving the said Union’.

In the debate that followed there is an eerie echo of current discourse with much discussion on the impracticality in the dissolving of the union.

The Earl of Peterborough remarked that the Union should be compared to a marriage and ‘that though sometimes there happened a difference between man and wife yet it did not presently break the marriage.  Since in like manner, though England must be supposed to be the husband might, in some instances having been unkind to the Lady yet she ought not presently sue for divorce.’ He concluded with a currently familiar argument that ‘ the Scots as a people could never be satisfied; that they would have all the advantages of being united to England but would pay nothing; and that they had more money from England than all their estates amounted to in their own country’.

 The Duke of Argyle in a moving speech accepted the fact that he had supported the Union but he now ‘believed in his conscience it was as much an interest of England as of Scotland to have it dissolved’.  Should the much hated malt-tax be implemented in Scotland ‘it must be done by a regiment of dragoons’.

Other arguments of a topical nature included ‘ that it might easily be proved that it were better when they were asunder , than when together and for that reason if the Union were  dissolved again the two nations would be like  to be better friends’. Though many peers felt that it was impracticable to dissolve the union, an English peer, the Earl of Nottingham stated that ‘if they had power to make it, they certainly had power to dissolve it.’ He concluded ‘since the Scots who were the best judges of the affairs of their kingdom found that it did not answer the needs proposed, he was for dissolving it’.

 A nameless ‘Scotch lord’ railed that ‘if the Union were not dissolved their country would be the most miserable under heaven’.

The question was put on the Earl of Finlater’s motion with 54 votes for each side but with 17 proxies against and 13 for the affirmative, the motion to dissolve was defeated by just 4 proxy votes.