What was the worst moment in Scottish history?

Scotland's stormy past, with its roll call of battles and assassinations, revolutions and revolts, can sometimes read like a masterclass in shooting ourselves in the foot. History, by definition, is a series of dramas stitched together by a running narrative in which those responsible for life-changing decisions, whether triumphant or disastrous, are held accountable: lauded, lambasted or simply airbrushed from the record.
If asked to nominate the worst decision in Scottish history, most of us would have little problem coming up with a list, with several contenders jockeying for the dubious honour of first place. Some might say, of course, that even to ask this question is to indulge in a national stereotype, the bittersweet compulsion to pick at old scabs.
Can you blame us? It feels as if for every brilliant innovation or intellectual breakthrough there has been an event, often avoidable, that has left the country reeling. Take the Battle of Flodden in 1513, which remains one of the frontrunners for the most reckless and needless decision ever made.
When James IV marched into England and confronted Henry VIII's troops near the border, he had a larger army and a strong strategic advantage. Shortly before battle commenced, however, he switched position, rendering his cannons useless as they shot far beyond range. Even worse, when his men charged down the hillside they were trapped in mud, allowing the English to pick them off.
Around 10,000 Scots died, including the king and many of the country's aristocracy. Since then, Flodden has become a byword for self-inflicted disaster, as when in 1961, one of the best Scottish football teams ever fielded lost 9-3 to England. The goalkeeper Frank Haffey was so vilified he emigrated to Australia.
A rather worse calamity was the Darien Scheme of 1695. The idea of setting up a colony in Panama to trade with the Pacific and Atlantic was not, in theory, a bad one. But climate, geography and politics turned a potentially money-spinning venture into a nightmare, bringing the country close to bankruptcy. This debacle led almost directly to the Union of Parliaments, with whose consequences, good and ill, we're still grappling. 1707 remains a sour date for those who, despite the economic benefits the Union brought, say we threw away our independence for the enrichment of a handful of self-serving toffs.
Dozens of dates vie for attention once, like fossil hunters, you start looking for footprints from the past. You could point to the Jacobites turning back at Derby in 1745 rather than marching on London, as planned. Who knows what might have happened had they taken the English capital. Yet I would argue that the entire Jacobite crusade was a mistake, given what followed: harsh reprisals and ill-feeling against the Highlands and Islands, an entrenching of anti-Catholic sentiment, and the start of an era of mass-emigration from the region, whose reverberations endure.
The same, of course, could be said for the Clearances. Although the emptying of glens and straths to make way for sheep in counties such as Sutherland and Caithness was the work of more than one individual, the nation was brutalised by this barbaric process. Not only was it immeasurably cruel to those who were displaced but its environmentally baleful legacy lives on.
There are countless other low points, among them the near collapse of the Royal Bank of Scotland in 2008 under Fred Goodwin's pugnaciously acquisitive regime. Overnight, the country's centuries-old pride for fiscal prudence evaporated. I'd also suggest that, for those keen to end the Union, holding the independence referendum in 2014 was, in retrospect, a mistake. Had it come a few years later, after the Brexit referendum — and when 56 of 59 Scottish MPs at Westminster were SNP — a majority might well have voted yes.
For me, however, the most momentous date of all is 16 May, 1568. On that day, Mary, Queen of Scots stepped into a boat and sailed across the Solway Firth to England. Despite the protestations of her closest advisers, she was determined to seek help from Elizabeth I, confident that with her cousin's support she could regain the throne that had been forcibly taken from her. It was a stupendous miscalculation, one so ill-advised that before departing she was obliged to sign a statement, produced by her inner circle, saying she was acting against their advice.
How Mary could have thought she would be safe in England is inexplicable, given the threat she posed. Within days she recognised she was a prisoner. Increasingly isolated and unwell, during the next 19 or so years she was drawn into conspiracies against her cousin. Nevertheless, it was a forged postscript to one of Mary's coded letters, by an agent acting for Elizabeth's spy master Sir Francis Walsingham, that led to her execution.
Had Mary not fled to England, things might have gone very differently. Although at the time of her abdication she was reviled for allegedly colluding in her husband Darnley's murder, support for her had since grown. It was entirely possible that she could have raised an army, overthrown her enemies, and lived to reign for many more years. How different Scotland might then have looked. And how much more vulnerable England would have been, with a potential ally of European Catholic powers as a neighbour. Indeed, a Catholic invasion could have reshaped the entire British isles.
You can also wonder what sort of man her son, the future James VI and I, would have been if raised by his mother rather than by fanatical Protestants. Might the shameful witchhunts he set in motion have been averted?
But there's another lingering legacy of Mary's fatal error. Since her beheading at Fotheringhay Castle she has been cast as a tragic figure, either a heroine or a weak and foolish woman, depending on your view. In an era of profound misogyny, promoted by the likes of John Knox, her story became a cautionary tale about the fallibility of women and their inability to be leaders. An echo of that narrative remains to this day. One bad decision; so many consequences.
Exile: The Captive Years of Mary, Queen of Scots by Rosemary Goring is published on 3 July by Birlinn.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Sky News

23 minutes ago

• Sky News

Former Centrica chief Laidlaw in frame to chair embattled BP

Sam Laidlaw, the former boss of Centrica, is among the candidates being considered as the next chairman of BP, Britain's besieged oil and gas exploration giant. Sky News has learnt that Mr Laidlaw is being considered by BP board members as a potential successor to Helge Lund, who announced in April that he would step down. BP's chair search comes with the £62bn oil major in a state of crisis, as industry predators circle and the pace of its strategic transformation being interrogated by shareholders. Elliott Management, the activist investor, snapped up a multibillion pound stake in BP earlier this year and is pushing its chief executive, Murray Auchincloss, to accelerate spending cuts and ditch a string of renewable energy commitments. Mr Lund's departure will come after nearly a quarter of BP's shareholders opposed his re-election at its annual meeting in April - an unusually large protest given that his intention to step down had already been announced. BP's senior independent director - the Aviva chief executive Amanda Blanc - is said to be moving "at pace" to complete the recruitment process. A number of prominent candidates are understood to be in discussions with headhunters advising BP on the search. Mr Laidlaw would be a logical choice to take the role, having transformed Centrica, the owner of British Gas, during his tenure, which ended in 2014. Since then, he has had a long stint - which recently concluded - on the board of miner Rio Tinto, which has been fending off activist calls to abandon its London listing. He also established, and then sold, Neptune Energy, an oil company which was acquired by Italy's Eni for nearly £4bn in 2023. Last December, Mr Laidlaw was appointed chairman of AWE, the government-owned body which oversees Britain's nuclear weapons capability. He also has strong family connections to BP, with his father, Christopher Laidlaw, having served as its deputy chairman during a long business career. One person close to BP said the younger Mr Laidlaw had been approached about chairing the company during its previous recruitment process but had ruled himself out because of his Neptune Energy role. The status of his engagement with BP's search was unclear on Saturday. Another person said to have been approached is Ken MacKenzie, who recently retired as chairman of the mining giant BHP. Mr MacKenzie headed BHP during a period when Elliott held a stake in the company, and is said to have a good working relationship with the investor. Shares in BP have continued their downward trajectory over the last year, having fallen by nearly a fifth during that period. The company's valuation slump is reported to have drawn renewed interest in a possible takeover bid, with rivals Shell and ExxonMobil among those said to have "run the numbers" in recent months. Reports of such interest have not elicited any formal response, suggesting that any deal is conceptual at this stage. BP is racing to sell assets including Castrol, its lubricants division, which could command a price of about $8bn.

Daily Mail​

29 minutes ago

• Daily Mail​

Rape charge against man staying in asylum hotel 'was kept secret to avoid stirring up community tensions'

Council chiefs have been accused of hushing up a rape charge against the inhabitant of an asylum hotel in order to avoid inflaming 'community tension'. The man was reportedly charged with rape and voyeurism following an attack on a woman on June 11, The Sun reported. He is believed to have been living at the Royal Beach Hotel in Southsea, which has functioned as an asylum hotel. However, the man appeared in front of Portsmouth magistrates' on June 16 and he was remanded in custody - so he is no longer living in the hotel. But there are now allegations that members of Portsmouth City Council sought to keep the nature of charged man's accommodation secret in order to avoid community unrest. Portsmouth City Council members were reportedly briefed in private about the charges against the man. However, it has been claimed that councillors were warned not to mention that the suspect lived in an asylum hotel. It was also reported that Portsmouth Independents Party leader Cllr George Madgwick was urged not to share 'privileged confidential information'. A young girl waves to security officers as a group of people thought to be migrants are brought in to Dover, Kent, from a Border Force vessel following a small boat incident in the Channel on June 20 Councillor Madgwick said: 'This is precisely why the public don't trust politicians and public bodies: things are hidden that should be disclosed. Anyone involved in any form of cover-up from disclosure to the public should question their role in a publicly funded position.' There are also two other cases in England, one in Manchester and one in London, in which the fact that suspects lived in asylum hotels was not disclosed. Shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick called the small-boat crossings 'a national security emergency'. 'Women in towns with asylum hotels shouldn't have to live in fear. The authorities must trust the public with the truth and act to protect them,' he said. A government spokesperson said: 'Sexual violence of all types is a despicable crime, causing the most unimaginable harm to victims and survivors. 'We recognise the immense bravery shown by them throughout their pursuit of justice, and protecting them remains central to our mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. 'We have already taken action to ban foreign nationals who commit sexual offences from being granted asylum, and will do everything in our power to pursue deportation from the UK so that these vile criminals are off our streets and paying the price for their crimes.'

The Guardian

30 minutes ago

• The Guardian

Esther Rantzen hails Commons passage of ‘rigorous and safe' assisted dying bill

The assisted dying bill, if it becomes law, would remove the burden of seeing a loved one die in pain, the campaigner Esther Rantzen has said, insisting its backers have got right the balance between giving help to those who ask for it and protecting vulnerable people. The terminally ill adults (end of life) bill cleared the Commons with a majority of 23 votes on Friday, but must yet be debated by the Lords before returning to the Commons for consideration of any amendments they may make. 'I think people misunderstand when somebody says 'one of the reasons I wanted assisted dying was I didn't want to be a burden'. Well, that's how I feel in the sense that, if I die in agony, that memory will be a burden for my family. Not because I'm awkward or inconvenient, I may be both those things, but because nobody wants to see a loved one die in pain. Nobody wants that,' Rantzen told BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Saturday. Asked if she had any doubts about the detail of the bill, she added: 'I think we have got this right. Having the committee stage [in parliament], with that committee rigorously looking at every clause and deciding to set up a multidisciplinary panel of social workers, someone versed in psychology, someone legal, so that they could examine it in each case.' She added this 'makes it so rigorous and so safe. And, in other countries around the world which we've looked at because they've had assisted dying legalised for some time, it has not produced coercion.' The legislation could face a difficult passage through the Lords, with critics poised to table amendments to add further restrictions and safeguards to the bill. And it was suggested to Rantzen that peers could also choose to debate it for so long that it simply runs out of parliamentary time. 'I don't need to teach the House of Lords how to do their job. They know it very well, and they know that laws are produced by the elected chamber. Their job is to scrutinise, to ask questions, but not to oppose.' Rantzen, who turns 85 on Sunday and has terminal cancer, acknowledged the legislation would probably not become law in time for her to use it and she would have to 'buzz off to Zurich' to use the Dignitas clinic. The Paralympian and crossbench peer Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson told BBC Breakfast: 'We're getting ready for it to come to the Lords and, from my personal point of view, about amending it to make it stronger … I do think there are a lot more safeguards that could be put in.' And the Conservative peer and disability rights campaigner Lord Shinkwin said the narrow Commons majority underlined the need for peers to take a close look at the legislation. Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who steered the bill through the Commons, said she hoped peers would not seek to derail the legislation, which could run out of parliamentary time if it is held up in the Lords. 'I would be upset to think that anybody was playing games with such an important and such an emotional issue.'