US Edition 
Outlander's Diana Gabaldon: What the Jacobite risings can tell us about Scottish Independence
There's a pathway from the 18th-century Jacobite Risings to the American Revolution and beyond, writes bestselling Outlander author Diana Gabaldon
For months, people have been asking my views about the Scottish independence referendum, and I’ve been saying, “It’s not my country; I don’t live here. Much as I love Scotland, I think it would be inappropriate to express a personal opinion regarding Scottish politics.”
But at this point, so close to the vote, I don’t think I can do harm or good to either side. And I’ve been asked once again for my opinion because of what I’m told are my “unique perspectives.”
I do have a few of those. Though I live in Arizona, my younger daughter is married to a Scotsman and has been living in Scotland for the last two years (daughter and son-in-law are both “No”, with chiefly economic concerns). And my father was a career politician, so I’ve seen the sausage being made first-hand.
I’ve also been writing a series of novels, beginning with Outlander, for the last 20-odd years, rooted in the 18th century history of Scotland and following the threads of Jacobite politics from the ’45 (also known as the second Jacobite Rising, in 1745) up through the American Revolution 1765-1783, in which one colonist in three was from Scotland. Therefore I do know a bit about Scottish history and politics in general. (People ask what drew me to Scotland as a subject for my novels. You’ll laugh - it was an early Patrick Troughton episode of Doctor Who in which I saw a young man in a kilt. “Well, that’s fetching,” I said. “You have to start somewhere; why not? Scotland, 18th-century, it is, then…”)
A television show based on my novels is presently being filmed in Scotland, and as a result I’ve formed friendships with a good many Scots among the cast and crew, who themselves are well-informed on current Scottish politics, and very involved and passionate about them - on both sides.
It's important to remember that the Jacobite Risings of the 18th century constituted a religious civil war, not a nationalistic movement. And contrary to what some people still believe, the Jacobite Scots of that time were by no means seeking “FREEDOMMMM!” (at whatever volume). It was their intent to re-take the throne not only of Scotland, but of England and Ireland.
The 1746 Battle of Culloden, in which Jacobite clansmen were destroyed by government soldiers, was certainly a discreditable episode. So were the government’s deliberate attempts to extirpate the Highland culture afterwards, much like the American Indian Wars, with the chief difference being that the Americans largely succeeded.
Putting aside cultural judgements, though, you can discern a political pathway from the Risings to the American Revolution which led to independence for America from British rule, if only because a good many of the same people were involved in both of them. And while it might be stretching things to make direct comparisons between that revolution and the current referendum, there are common elements: an objection to perceived economic exploitation, and a desire for self-determination in government.
It’s worth noting that at the time of the American Revolution, no sane person would have given two cents for its success. No more than 15% of the population was actively in favour of it, it was badly organised and without funds, and it tottered on the verge of military defeat for the first two or three years. The majority of the population regarded its leaders as dangerous radicals at best, dangerous idiots at worst. Independence for America seemed much less likely then than it does for Scotland today.
As for the political sausage, no one can be in any doubt about the messy nature of politics under even the most stable of governments. Want to guess how messy things will get (not can, actually will) if the referendum passes? Assuming passage, will it be worth it in the end? Not a question I can answer, and nor can anyone else. But I guarantee the mess.
As I said above, I don’t feel it appropriate to express a personal opinion (that doesn’t mean I won’t do it, mind…), but I’ve certainly listened with great interest to the opinions of a lot of people for whom it is appropriate, as they’ll have to live with the consequences.
The “No” proponents’ opinions seem based on conservatism (“We like things as they are; why change?"), fear of specific loss (one of my Scottish drivers was concerned about changes to the NHS, a crew member worried about currency stability, another was concerned over pensions), or concern over the shape of the future of an independent Scotland (as one man said, “Being Scottish is better than being British, but being British is a lot better than being part of the EU.”).
Three of the principal cast members of Outlander have come out publically for “Yes”: Sam Heughan, Graham MacTavish and Grant O’Rourke. And the “Yes” proponents are on fire: idealistic, hopeful, inspired by the idea of change and of democratic self-determination. They point to what they consider specific instances of “London-centric” government and media bias, and have a great many particulars of economic and cultural argument to hand.
Me? It isn’t my country. But I do have a country; I’m an American. Given our own cultural and historical background, Americans on the whole are deeply sympathetic toward people who feel (rightly or wrongly) that they have been oppressed by government, and we tend always to want to support people seeking democratic self-determination. Aye or Naw? Put me down as “Mibbe” - but with the best wishes for the future of Scotland and her people, however the present vote goes.
The first series of Outlander is broadcast in the United States on Starz. UK broadcast arrangements are still being finalised.