An academic has sparked new debate about the Act of Union after claiming that the treaty may have had legitimate strong support in Scotland.
The unification of Scotland and England in 1707 has long been the source of contention among some Scots.
But ahead of its 300th anniversary, historian Christopher Whatley claimed the deal was desired by Scotland.
He said his research had scotched the claim that the Act's Scottish signatories were corrupt.
Over the years it has been claimed that Scots who put their names to the treaty had been bribed by the English.
The event famously spurred Robert Burns to write in an attack on the loss of Scottish independence: "We are bought and sold for English gold. Such a parcel of rogues in a nation."
"It became clear that unionists in Scotland were not the traitors they have been portrayed as"
However Prof Whatley, vice principal of Dundee University, claimed his five-years of research on the subject had shown the popular accounts of the passage of Union through the last Scottish Parliament to be inaccurate.
He said the evidence indicated that some parliamentarians gave their backing to the move because it brought practical benefits beyond wiping out debts in Scotland.
"It became clear that unionists in Scotland were not the traitors they have been portrayed as," he said.
"Many were principled in their support of a British union that would strengthen Scotland economically and against their enemies - France, the Jacobites and the Catholic Church.
"Patriotism was certainly not the preserve of the opponents of the Union - even though it is these politicians Scots today are inclined to pay homage to."
In his new book, Scots and the Union, Prof Whately has claimed that the Unionists cared deeply for the future of the Scottish nation.
^ Back to top | BBC Sport Home | BBC Homepage | Contact us | Help | ©
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~34~RS~)