Top Tweets for #auldenemy

The myth is simple enough: - William Paterson borrowed £500,000. - Scotland bankrupted itself. - Union was inevitable. - Scotland was rescued by England. It's also false. The £500,000 wasn't a loan. It wasn't borrowed by Paterson. It wasn't borrowed by the Scottish state. It wasn't sovereign debt, and it didn't represent national bankruptcy. What that figure actually refers to is capital subscribed to the Company of Scotland Trading to Africa and the Indies, a chartered trading company created by Act of the Scottish Parliament in 1695. Like other trading companies of the era, it raised money by issuing shares. People chose to invest. They took risk. Some lost money. That's equity, not debt. Equity losses don't = national insolvency. Paterson didn't take out a £500,000 loan because he couldn't. He was one promoter among several, not the sole architect, or the main investor. Over time he's been turned into the villain because blaming one man is easier than explaining power and coercion. There's also the irony that Patterson was Unionist and aligned with London-centred commercial thinking. Unionist mythology therefore ends up blaming a London based Unionist for "bankrupting" Scotland, and then uses that claim to justify Union. The Bank of England is often dragged in to add weight to the story. Paterson helped propose the idea of the Bank of England in 1694, therefore the myth becomes "Scottish founder of the Bank borrowed £500k for Darien". In reality, he was sidelined early and the Bank of England didn't finance Darien. In fact English investors were actively discouraged and later barred. Scotland itself didn't go bankrupt. The Company of Scotland was a separate legal entity. The state continued to function. Revenues were collected, administration continued, and there was no sovereign default. Some elites lost money. That's not the same thing as national insolvency. So why did Darien fail? Because it was deliberately isolated, and sabotaged. English diplomatic pressure was applied abroad. English colonies were instructed not to trade with or resupply the settlement. Ports were closed, recognition was denied, and disease followed. In 1705 the Alien Act imposed explicit economic sanctions on Scotland unless it complied with English demands over succession and Union. This was political and economic pressure, not the result of the failure of Darien. None of this features prominently in the familiar Darien tale. Instead we're given a morality play about Scottish incompetence and English rescue. The Darien myth functions as a comfort blanket. It converts coercion into necessity and annexation into benevolence. If Scotland was reckless and bankrupt, then England didn't annex Scotland, it assumed responsibility. That's why Darien gets dragged into debates where it's irrelevant. It's not being used to understand 1707. It's being used to justify a dependency narrative: - Scotland can't safely stand alone - England intervenes when Scots fail and saves us - Union is the only safe solution Once a story serves that emotional function, contradictions are tolerated. Evidence that undermines it is treated as threat, not information. There's also a deeper logical problem that never gets answered. Even if Darien had failed completely, it still wouldn't explain why sovereignty transferred, why a parliament was dissolved, or why a nation was annexed. Private investment losses don't ordinarily extinguish national sovereignty. That's why the £500,000 line persists. It's not there to explain the Union. It's there to excuse it. Strip away the myth and what remains is straightforward: - a failed private venture - heavy elite losses - deliberate external pressure - and then the political exploitation of crisis, leading to annexation. So the story is actually simple, it's just not the one we've been told for 3 centuries.