identity was gradually diluted, which in turn was conducive in uniting England andScotland in 1707.
While Scotland was divided among presbyterians, jacobites andanglicans it did produce a king in James the I and VI and viewed the national interest beyond its border with England. This thinking can be traced back to James the I and VI,who articulated this emerging ideology when he stated ‘away taking of that partition wallwhich already by gods province is rent asunder’.
By 1707 most Scots would have had a preposition towards the idea of a British monarchy in contrast to Ireland. While themajority of Scots would have rejected Kings such as Charles the I and James the II,Scotland did view its place with in a royal frame work more so than the Irish. KeithBrown suggests that the fighting during the English civil war warranted a ‘Britishsolution to a British problem’; he also adds that these situations created opportunities for Scottish leaders to make new contacts with the British aristocracy.
The xenophobiclexicon used by Whig politicians such as ‘Scotch vermin and Irish frogs” was matchedwith a cultivating of aristocratic relations between the English and the Scottish.
Thiscoupled with increasing cross border marriages, was slowly knitting together theideological integration of England and Scotland.
Unlike Scotland, Ireland did not have the same shared hereditary connections with thecrown. Indeed since the kingdom of Ireland was established in 1541, Ireland’s evolutionwas punctuated with rebellion. Rebellions as far back as the Kildare or Desmonds in the
Keith Brown, ‘The origins of a British Aristocracy’, Steven Ellis, Sarah Parker ,
Conquest and Union, Fashioning a British State, 1485-1725
, (London 1995), p222.
The Four Nations
, (London 2002),p149.
Keith Brown, ‘The origins of a British Aristocracy’, Steven Ellis and Sarah Parker
Conquest and Union, Fashioning a British State, 1485-1725,
Keith Brown, ‘Scottish Identity’, Brendan Bradshaw and Peter Roberts,
British Consciousness and Identity,