Abstract :
The rebellion against Charles I’s authority that began in Edinburgh in 1637 involved the
Scots in successive invasions of England and armed intervention in Ireland. Historians have almost universally
taken a negative view of Scottish involvement in these wars, because it has been assumed that the
Scottish political leadership sacrificed all other considerations in order to pursue an unrealistic religious
crusade. This article suggests that aspects of the Anglo-Scottish relationship need to be reappraised. Using
estimates of English payments to the Scots during the 1640s, it will be argued that the Scottish leadership
made pragmatic political decisions based on a practical appreciation of the country’s military and fiscal
capacity. Substantial payouts from the English parliament enabled the Scottish parliamentary regime to
engage in military and diplomatic activities that the country could not otherwise have afforded. The 1643
treaty that brought the Scots into the English Civil War on the side of parliament contrasts favourably with
the 1647 Engagement in support of the king. It will be shown that, although the English parliament did not
honour all of its obligations to the Scots, it does not automatically follow that the alliance was a failure in
financial terms.
