logo
What was the worst moment in Scottish history?

What was the worst moment in Scottish history?

Times20-06-2025
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.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

I'm a 'hard enough b*****d' to lead the country... despite collapsing under pressure to own MPs over benefit cuts
I'm a 'hard enough b*****d' to lead the country... despite collapsing under pressure to own MPs over benefit cuts

Daily Mail​

time43 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

I'm a 'hard enough b*****d' to lead the country... despite collapsing under pressure to own MPs over benefit cuts

Keir Starmer has insisted he is a 'hard-enough bastard' to lead the country – despite capitulating to his own MPs over benefit cuts. In a bizarre aside, the Prime Minister pushed back against suggestions that recent U-turns have wrecked his political authority. Asked whether he was tough enough to drive through change following a series of reverses, he told the BBC 's Political Thinking podcast that he was 'proud' of his record in government. 'We need to reflect on where things have not gone according to plan, and the Welfare Bill was one of them,' he said. 'But we also need to emphasise the very many good things we have done.' The Arsenal fan denied that he had 'lost the [Labour] dressing room'. And when podcast host Nick Robinson revealed that a former football team-mate had described Sir Keir as a 'hard bastard', the PM responded: 'I'm a hard-enough bastard to find out who said that so I can have a discussion with them.' His comments echoed Ed Miliband's much-mocked bravado in 2015 when he responded to questions about his suitability for power by declaring: 'Hell, yes, I'm tough enough.' Downing Street declined to comment further on Sir Keir's words yesterday, but insisted the PM was not a 'pushover' despite caving in to pressure to make huge U-turns on welfare cuts, the winter fuel payment and grooming gangs in recent weeks. Sir Keir did acknowledge an array of blunders, saying caving into Labour rebels on welfare was a 'tough day' and that he regretted a speech warning that uncontrolled immigration could turn Britain into an 'island of strangers'. The PM tried to make a virtue out of U-turns on issues such as the national inquiry into grooming gangs, arguing it was 'common sense' to 'look again' when doubts were raised. 'I'm not one of these ideological thinkers, where ideology dictates what I do,' said. 'I'm a pragmatist. You can badge these things as U-turns – it's common sense to me. If someone says to me, 'here's some more information and I really think it's the right thing to do', I'm the kind of person that says, 'well, in which case, let's do it'.' In a message to Labour MPs, Sir Keir said the Government needed to 'emphasise the many good things we have done'. 'We're only just starting. This in a sense is the toughest year, so we're only just beginning,' he said, adding that he did not 'pretend' that the Labour revolt this week which forced him to neuter his benefit curbs was not a 'tough day'. 'I take responsibility,' he said. 'We didn't get the process right.' But he insisted the Government had 'done some fantastic things' and 'driven through so much change'. The PM said that included bringing down waiting lists in the NHS, as well as 'loads of improvements in schools and stuff that we can do for children'. Sir Keir went on: 'Whether that's rolling out school uniform projects, whether it's school meals, breakfast clubs, you name it – and also [bringing in] a huge amount of investment into the country. 'And of course we've been busy getting three trade deals.' When our political leaders try to 'talk tough' 'Am I tough enough? Hell, yes, I'm tough enough.' Ed Miliband, March 2015, on whether he was tough enough to be PM. 'You worked so hard, you didn't feel you'd drunk ten pints by four o'clock, you used to sweat so much.' William Hague, August 2000, boasting he drank 14 pints a day as a teenage delivery worker. 'I am a fighter, not a quitter.' Liz Truss, October 22, the day before she resigned as Prime Minister. 'I have to confess, when me and my friend, sort of, used to run through the fields of wheat – the farmers weren't too pleased about that.' Theresa May, June 2017, on the naughtiest thing she had done.

DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Hard man fantasy of a PM losing control
DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Hard man fantasy of a PM losing control

Daily Mail​

time43 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Hard man fantasy of a PM losing control

Mad Frankie Fraser, Iron Mike Tyson, Ronnie and Reggie Kray. To this list of notorious tough guys, we must now add Keir Starmer – a streetfighter straight outta Reigate. The genteel Surrey suburbs might not seem a natural breeding ground for bruisers, but friends say the PM's upbringing belies the inner beast. 'He's a hard bastard,' they tell the BBC 's Nick Robinson. Sir Keir humbly agrees. 'A hard enough bastard,' he says. Really? Is he even the hardest member of Cabinet? It would be a brave punter who backed him over three rounds against Angela Rayner, or indeed in an alley fight with his gimlet-eyed enforcer Pat McFadden. All this nonsense is, of course, designed to make Sir Keir out to be a strong and macho leader. In truth, it makes him look silly and desperate. On his first anniversary in power, he appears weaker and more out of touch than ever. A survey this week shows one in three people who voted Labour 12 months ago now regret it. The big surprise is that it's only one in three. The backbench rebellion which shredded his welfare reforms and had his Chancellor sobbing in the Commons was his greatest humiliation. But there have been many other errors, U-turns and betrayals of his manifesto promises. No one voted for a £40 billion tax raid, the scrapping of winter fuel allowance, releasing thousands of dangerous prisoners early or the outrageous surrender of the Chagos Islands. His boast that he would 'smash the gangs' trafficking migrants across the Channel has been an ignominious failure, the growth he promised has flatlined and borrowing has soared. The only people to have really benefited from Starmer's first year are the public-sector unions, whose members have received bumper pay rises and a new workers' charter, which places a raft of stifling obligations on hard-pressed employers. And what are the omens for Sir Keir's second year (assuming he survives it)? For anyone with savings, property, a pension fund, a small business, it threatens to be far worse than his first. He has lost control of his parliamentary party and with it any chance of cutting back the ballooning state. Indeed, his newly empowered MPs, most of whom have never had a job outside politics, charities or the public sector, are likely to demand even higher public spending. For example, they will no doubt push for lifting the two-child benefit cap, which would be a huge payday for those with large families but cost upwards of £3.5 billion – more money we don't have. The only way to pay for this ever-growing financial black hole is for our lame-duck Chancellor to raise yet more tax. As usual, the burden will fall on the hard-pressed families of middle Britain. It would be a betrayal of Labour's central manifesto promise but, as we have learned in this year, Sir Keir is not a man of principle. He may think of himself as a hard man, but he's deluding himself. Every time there has been a genuinely tough decision to be made – on welfare, the grooming gangs inquiry, winter fuel allowance and much else – he's buckled. His fellow tough guy Mike Tyson famously said: 'Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.' This is effectively what's happened to Sir Keir. If he ever had a plan, it's in tatters. And the country will pay the price.

Public sector bigger than before Covid under SNP
Public sector bigger than before Covid under SNP

Times

timean hour ago

  • Times

Public sector bigger than before Covid under SNP

Scotland's public sector will remain more bloated than it was before the pandemic even if SNP ministers hit a target requiring some departments to cut one in eight jobs, experts have warned. IPPR Scotland, a think tank, said a promise to protect and in some cases expand frontline roles while finding overall staffing reductions of 0.5 per cent by 2030 would mean exposed departments have to slash 20,000 posts to plug a projected spending gap approaching £5 billion. However, even if the target is met this would 'not undo the increases in devolved public services since 2019', according to separate analysis published by the Fraser of Allander Institute, based at the University of Strathclyde. The institute's independent economists also downgraded their growth forecasts for the Scottish economy and predicted 0.8 per cent growth this year, and just 1 per cent in 2026. This is despite ministers claiming Scotland is a 'modern, high-growth country', an assertion the IPPR analysis said 'might be generously described as optimistic'. Before Holyrood went into recess for the summer, the finance secretary, Shona Robison, outlined the need to tackle a £2.6 billion shortfall in day-to-day resource spending and £2.1 billion deficit on capital projects, which she blamed on 'Westminster austerity'. However, critics lambasted the SNP for 'years of gross financial incompetence', with a significant proportion of the black hole explained by the creation of more generous devolved welfare payments and a ballooning and increasingly well-paid public sector. The wage bill for the devolved public sector is close to £30 billion, which is about 55 per cent of the block grant funding from Westminster. Public sector pay is projected to reach £32 billion by 2029-30 even if the overall workforce shrinks. The Fraser of Allander Institute said that although some of the increases in staffing were accounted for by the creation of Social Security Scotland to administer new devolved welfare payments, this did not account for most of the rapid expansion. 'It's laughable for SNP ministers to claim Scotland is a high-growth country based on the facts,' the Scottish Tory MSP Craig Hoy said. 'The reality is we're a high-tax, low-growth nation as a direct result of their policies. 'The nationalists' addiction to a bloated, inefficient public sector is the reason nobody has faith in their ability to make the cuts needed to plug the huge black hole they have created in Scotland's finances.' Hoy added: 'Their failure to fully pass on the rates relief available to businesses south of the border, coupled with them making Scotland the highest taxed part of the UK, explains why the growth rate here is even lower than the anaemic rate Keir Starmer is presiding over.' There were about 590,000 public sector workers in Scotland in 2024, representing 22 per cent of the workforce. The proportion is lower than in Northern Ireland and Wales but far higher than in England, where 17 per cent of workers are employed by the state. The size of the public sector workforce in Scotland grew by 11 per cent between 2017 and last year, with average public sector pay almost 5 per cent higher than the UK as a whole. Robison said last week that reducing overall staff numbers by 0.5 per cent, largely through 'natural attrition and recruitment controls', could lead to £700 million of savings. Compulsory redundancies, she said, could be used as a 'last resort', reversing a long-standing ban. A 0.5 per cent reduction in the 550,000 workers for devolved functions would mean 11,000 full-time jobs being cut. However, the IPPR said that as frontline jobs, which account for the vast majority of roles, were being protected, the axe would fall heavily on those that were not. 'Taken together, that would mean the rest of the devolved public sector facing staffing cuts of around 3 to 3.5 per cent per year or a drop of about 13 per cent by 2029-30,' a blog co-authored by IPPR Scotland director Stephen Boyd said. 'That amounts to around 20,000 jobs. 'Can the public-sector backroom bear cuts of that scale? Does the distinction between frontline and backroom make any sense? Are there really thousands of backroom public-sector roles that can be replaced by technology over the next four years? 'The Scottish government risks finding out that the answers to these questions are unlikely to be the ones they need to achieve a pain-free balancing of the budget.' Ivan McKee, the public finance minister, said: 'It is clearer than ever that Scotland's economy is being impacted by challenging global trading conditions and uncertainty, conditions mirrored across the rest of the UK.' McKee added: 'We are taking ambitious steps to grow the economy by pursuing new investment, building export potential and driving and capitalising on the Scottish innovation at the forefront of many key global industries. 'But we are doing all of this without the full economic powers of independence that are needed to fully address the issues facing Scottish businesses. We need decisive action from the UK government to counter the damaging economic impacts of Brexit and business uncertainty. This includes reversing its decision to increase employers' national insurance contributions which, as the Scottish Chambers of Commerce has highlighted, is severely damaging business confidence, investment, growth and jobs. 'As set out by the finance secretary last week, savings rising to £2.6 billion in 2029-30 will ensure funding can be targeted at frontline services such as the NHS, social security, action to eradicate child poverty and other priorities. This includes our commitment to reduce annualised Scottish government and public bodies' corporate costs by 20 per cent over the next five years.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store