from the Treaty of Union. Chiefs and lairds feared that theirrnheritable jurisdietions, upheld through baronial eourts, wouldrnbe swept away by the 1707 treaty, despite assurances to the contrary.rnTraditionally, the lands of each clan were “owned” by thernentire body, the chief serving merely as custodian at the sufferancernof his tacksmen (notables), who could depose him if herndid not rule in the interest of the whole; the new British parliament,rnhowever, within a generation had passed legislation makingrnthe chiefs and lairds landowners in the English sense, thusrngiving them sole legal control over their lands. The logical outcomernof such a policy became clear after the brutal Jacobiterndefeat at Culloden in 1746 when thousands of Highlandersrnwere banished in favor of more profitable tenants—sheep.rnThe ascending forces of modernity perhaps are best seen inrnthe increased efficiency of the British militarv, whose Scottishrncampaigns in the first half of the 18th century foreshadowedrnthe terrible concept of total war. There is no better example ofrnthe horror visited upon the society of old Scotland than that ofrn”Butcher” Cumberland, whose unconscionable rape of thernHighlands in the aftermath of Culloden prefigured Sherman’srnrampage through the American South over a century later. Butrnthe unbridled use of military force by the central governmentrnto quell the Jacobite uprisings brought more than indiscriminaternbloodshed, hideed, the loss of the heritable jurisdictionsrnand the destruction of the close-knit relations betweenrnchiefs/tacksmen and lairds/tenants compromised the foundationrnof traditional Scottish society. The old order in the Highlandsrnand northeast, predicated on a sort of Filmcrian patriarchalism,rncould not survive without the means to defend itselfrnfrom the alien ideologies of the 18th-eentury version of thernNew Worid Order. But the modern British commercial staterndesired to monopolize the means of violence (at least on a scalernlarge enough to be politically significant), which meant that thernchiefs and lairds had to be disarmed and made dependent on arnunitary government for protection.rnThough government attempts to disarm the more unruly elementsrnof Scottish society can be found during the reigns ofrnJames VI and I (1567-1625) and of his grandson, Charles IIrn(1660-85), it was not until the age of Jacobite “rebellion” thatrnroyal authorities began to take gun control seriously. After thern1715 uprising. Parliament passed the Disarming Act of 1716,rnthe Preamble to which reads:rnThe custom that has too long prevailed among the Highlandersrn. . . of having arms in their custody and using andrnbearing them in traveling abroad, in the helds and atrnpublic meetings, has greatly obstructed the civilizing ofrnthe people within the countries [i.e., the historic regionsrnof Scotland] hereinafter named has prevented their applyingrnthemselves to husbandry, manufactories, and otherrnvirtuous and profitable employments… and has beenrnone of the fatal causes of the late unnatural rebellion.rnThough the government’s intent was serious in 1716, the actrndid little to disarm large numbers of Highlanders because therernwas no way of enforcing the law in the remote north and west.rnNot until the construction of General Wade’s road network intornthe Highlands in the mid-1720’s, the strengthening of royalrngarrisons such as Fort William and Inverness, and increasedrnnaval activity along the Scottish coast was the government ablernto consider a realistic policy of gun control. But in the DisarmingrnAct of 1725, London was forced to admit that “Many personsrnwithin the said shires [mainly in the Highlands] continuernpossessed of great quantities of arms and warlike weapons.”rnThe quashing of the last Jacobite rising in 1745-46 enabledrnthe government of George II (1727-60) to succeed finally inrndisarming the Highland clan regiments (which were more likerntrue militia units than were the Black Watch and other government-rnfinanced Scottish forces, which were incorporated intornthe British army). The Disarming Act of 1746 was much morernsweeping in its proscriptions and more thoroughly enforcedrnthan were the acts of 1716 and 1725. Besides stripping Highlandersrnand Jacobite Episcopalians of the northeast of theirrnweapons, the 1746 act sought to destroy their culture and economyrnas well. During the ensuing “reconstruction” of the Highlands,rnbagpipes and traditional dress were outlawed, and it wasrnmandated that children of the chiefs and lairds be properlyrnschooled by pro-Hanoverian teachers and tutors so as “tornprevent the rising generation being educated in disaffected orrnrebellious principles.”rnThe disarming of Jacobites in 1746 opened the way for thernabolition of the heritable jurisdictions (which of course hadrnbeen guaranteed by the Act of Union of 1707) and the forfeiturernof the estates of antigovernment chiefs and lairds. Unlikernin 1715 and 1719, when forfeited estates were returned to thernrightful owners, the government’s seizure of private assets inrn1746 was permanent. The reason for the forfeitures was tornmake the produce of the annexed lands “applicable to the purposernof civilizing the inhabitants . . . of the Highlands . . . thernpromoting amongst them [of] the Protestant religion, goodrngovernment, industry and manufactures, and the principles ofrnduty and loyalty to his Majesty.” We might now imagine thernspecter of Mrs. Grant of Laggan’s typical Whig tramping acrossrnthe desolate landscape with his coldly calculating eye fixed onrnthe property of dispossessed and disarmed Scots.rnSince 1746, Scotland has been little more than an economicrncolony of England. In the present century many ablebodiedrnScots have become pathetic victims of British welfarism,rnand with a good part of its populace living off the dole,rnScotland’s chances of effecting a successful separation fromrnWestminster are severely limited. Nonetheless, recent polls indicaternthat 30 percent of them want full independence fromrnEngland and that 75 percent favor a separate Scottish Parliamentrnsitting in Edinburgh. But support for self-rule north ofrnthe Tweed unfortunately has a hollow ring to it; without question,rnfew Scots—paralyzed politically by the British welfarernstate and draconian gun laws—pose the threat to London thatrntheir fiercely independent forebears did. Rather, most who favorrnindependence from England look outside Scotland for salvation.rnThe leftist majority of the Scottish National Partyrn(SNP), long the most outspoken advocate of self-rule, favors independencern”from above”—that is, they want to see the EuropeanrnUnion (E^U) strip the United Kingdom of its nationalrnsovereignty, thus permitting Scotland to form a separate staternunder the auspices of the EU. However, the SNP will probablyrnfind that Brussels makes a more tyrannical master than London.rnScots at the close of the 20th century find themselves forcedrnto advocate independence “from above” because they nornlonger can muster the will or the means to defend themselvesrnand their property “from below.” Their helplessness contrastsrnwith the heroic exploits of William Wallace and Robert Brucernduring the Scottish Wars of Independence (1296-1320), an erarn18/CHRONICLESrnrnrn