It is often entertaining to speculate how the Jacobites could have avoided or won Culloden, or even how they could have taken London. But it is more important for the understanding of our current situation to understand the reasons for Jacobitism's rise and the ramifications of its destruction.

Jacobite history has been often marginalised by those who wish to justify the status quo. Sadly, this attitude towards Gaelic self-determination is still alive and well today. The Jacobites were, and often still are, presented simply as Highland ‘savages’, largely ignoring the important issues involved; in a similar way the IRA are marginalised by today’s media, being presented simply as terrorists and ignoring the larger questions. Jacobitism itself was far more than a Highland movement in a Scottish civil war, though it is often been reported as such — again similar to the way recent Irish class conflict is presented as a religious war.

The 1707 Act of Union effectively allows England to control Scotland and its resources, especially in terms of overseas trade. Consequently the Scottish economy was unable to develop, resulting in the clearance of its people. If Jacobitism did not start solely as a nationalist movement, it certainly took on significant nationalist dimensions after this Act. Despite some devolution of power Scotland is still locked into the Union and remains a neo-colony of England. The Union ‘agreement’ has been frequently broken by Westminster, even into our own time — the imposition of poll-tax in 1989 illegally breached the Union.

The Jacobite Army’s defeat at Culloden ended the Scots’ military capacity to defend themselves and allowed the beginning of what we now euphemistically call ‘ethnic cleansing’. The Highland Clearances gained much momentum after this final and brutal suppression. While a different result of the ’45 is unlikely to have stopped the anglicisation and commercialisation of Scotland, the brutal Clearances would not have happened and social changes would have happened more on Scotland’s terms than England’s. Scotland certainly would have been in a better position to control its own trade and resources to the benefit of its people. Scotland today might not be riddled with poverty and its associated problems.

Ireland’s problems are a result of a similar loss of sovereignty and the 1688 Revolution. Although most of Ireland has now obtained independence, confiscated lands were never returned, and the Irish people have had little or no control over their economy. Ireland too might well have been in a better position if it had had the opportunity to control the development of its economy. The struggle for sovereignty still continues in the occupied territories of northern Ireland. Today’s anti-Union campaigners are marginalised in a similar fashion to the Jacobites.

The aftermath of Culloden is the very reason for many people in New Zealand, Australia, Canada, USA, and many other areas being where they are today. After the Clearances many Scots and Irish, dispossessed of their land, became the urban poor of UK’s Industrial Revolution. These were the conditions that our ancestors left to create a society free of class division and poverty. Given current political and economic direction in New Zealand, we must ask ourselves why class division is being widened again. If we want to remain true to our founding ancestors’ egalitarian aims, our political parties need a major rethink on the low social-spending and free-market approach that has been taken since the mid 1980s.

During last century’s European settlement of New Zealand, the indigenous Māori population were dispossessed of their land and culture in the same way the Gaels had been — despite the Treaty acknowledging Tino Rangatiratanga (sovereignty) to Māori over their own affairs and assets. Title for communally-owned land was only granted to Māori chiefs and dispossessed tribe members from their land. Te Reo (Māori language) was given an ignoble status. Laws were heavily biased against traditional Māori rights (especially in economic terms) — these techniques of dispossession were perfected during the Clearances.

But the Gaelic settlers brought with them their own values derived from their experiences of exploitation (there was even a Fenian rebellion on the West Coast). Because of their experiences and history many identified with the plight of Māori. Some even actively sided with Māori in some disputes, and were accepted into the Tangata Whenua (people of the land) by Māori. It would be hypocritical for those who bemoan the loss of Gaelic sovereignty and ancestral land to perpetuate the same practices on others. The Crown’s flouting of the Treaty leaves this country with considerable questions to be answered about the struggle for Māori Tino Rangatiratanga.