The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


A little bit of history repeating

Posted on February 15, 2014 by

Sometimes you have to wonder if the Scottish Wars of Independence are actually over. Throughout many long centuries, Scottish independence was seen by England not just as a threat, but as something that wasn’t actually legal.

balliol

Throughout the medieval period, the argument revolved around homage – which Scottish King had done homage to which English king, hence confirming the fact of feudal overlordship and thus the Scottish monarch’s subordinate position. When that was denied, violence was the usual result. And in his own only slightly more modern way, George Osborne this week declared the same war once more.

When in 1296 John Balliol renounced the homage that he had paid to Edward I, the latter began the military assault on Scotland which only came to an end at Bannockburn eighteen years later and culminated in the signing of the treaty of Edinburgh-Northampton in 1328, in which Scotland:

shall belong to our dearest ally and friend, the magnificent prince, Lord Robert, by God’s grace illustrious King of Scotland, and to his heirs and successors, separate in all things from the kingdom of England, whole, free, and undisturbed in perpetuity, without any kind of subjection, service, claim or demand.”

The peace of Northampton lasted only five years. Then it was Edward Balliol’s turn to invade, with the tacit – and later overt – support of Edward III of England. Balliol crowned himself King of Scots and duly paid homage to Edward III in 1334, reversing the independence won with such difficulty by Robert the Bruce.

By 1543, things had changed, but not by much. When the Scottish parliament renounced the Treaty of Greenwich which had agreed the marriage between the future Edward VI of England and Mary Queen of Scots, Henry VIII’s reaction was to declare war and invade Scotland in a particularly brutal show of strength. And the same old justification was rolled out in the propaganda:

“A Declaration conteynyng the iust causes and consyderations, of this present warre with the Scottis, wherein alsoo appereth the trewe & right title, that the kinges most royall maiesty hath to the soueraynitie of Scotlande”

This war became known as the ‘Rough Wooing’ – or as George Gordon, Earl of Huntly put it: “We liked not the manner of the wooing, and we could not stoop to being bullied into love.” (Several commentators this week have noted the similarity. In the modern argot, it’d probably be called “date rape”.)

But we’re not here to recount the entire history of Scotland, so we’ll fast-forward to 1703-5, a critical period in the relations between England and Scotland. Since the countries shared the same monarch by this time, the old feudal argument could not be used. Instead the conflict moved to the parliaments of the two nations, with the Hanoverian succession at stake.

The Scottish parliament, unhappy at the assumption by the English parliament that it had the right to choose the next monarch, asserted its own right to act independently over the succession through the Act of Security in 1703 and followed it with the Act Anent Peace and War – which declared that if the monarch wished to lead Scotland to war, the consent of the Scottish parliament must be obtained first.

(311 years later, the UK parliament still hasn’t managed to pass a similar act, despite Tam Dayell’s attempts at the time of the Iraq war. The Queen – on advice – refused to allow the bill to be debated. If nothing else, the comparison graphically shows up the difference between ‘Queen in parliament’ and ‘Sovereignty of the people’ It is not some fusty legal distinction, but carries real and significant political ramifications.)

The English parliament’s response was stark. The Alien Act said that Scottish nationals in England were to be treated as foreign nationals, and estates held by Scots would be treated as alien property. It also included an embargo on the import of Scottish products into England and English colonies, covering goods such as linen, cattle and coal. Unless, of course, Scotland embarked on negotiations for a union.

Which, after much hesitation, they did. The rest, until now, is history.

There’s a pattern here, and it’s not a pretty one. The historic response from south of the border to claims of Scottish independence has always been to use legal assertions, blackmail and the threat of violence.

It might have been hoped that Westminster had grown up. The Edinburgh Agreement gave momentary cause to think that it had. But when UK interests are threatened by Scotland asserting its rights, the instinctive reaction is to revert to type.

The same old legal weapon is being used against Scotland again. It’s become more sophisticated and brutal, since arguments no longer revolve around who has sovereignty, but merely assert that Scotland as a country no longer exists and has no rights of its own. But at heart it’s the same statement of the right to dominate that’s been used for the past 700 years. George Osborne’s speech and the report in the Herald show that blackmail and menace are still the weapons of choice the UK/English government deploys when threatened by Scottish independence.

Whether it’s a wise choice is a different matter – and today even the (English edition) Daily Mail questions Osborne’s strategy – but subtlety of approach is something historically alien to Anglo-Scottish relations.

All this is dispiriting and unnecessary. We’re supposed to be friends and equal partners. We’re supposed to live in an era where at least some semblance of civilisation is brought to international affairs. But these ideals seem no longer to apply within the UK, if they ever did. What might have been a friendly and co-operative agreement to go our separate ways looks as though it will be terminally poisoned by those who cannot break free of the chains of history.

Print Friendly

    96 to “A little bit of history repeating”

    1. yerkitbreeks says:

      Imperialism is deeply ingrained in London, after all the feudalists became the industrialists and associated Liveries which had so much to do with accumulating the Empire’s riches. The modern legacy, the “Establishment” still thinks along acquisitive lines and certainly doesn’t want to give anything up – for example even after Athens created a purpose built housing for the Elgin Marbles the “British” museum hold on to them

    2. jingly jangly says:

      No Mention of Cromwell?

      Osborne and Cromwell share the same name Oliver…

      Wellcome back, felt like 12 hours in the dentists waiting room, full of apprehension waiting and waiting for the next post…

    3. ronnie anderson says:

      The Knights so bold may have disappeared,their replacement,s are the Weasels of the HoL,& Westminster troughfers,abused & used that,s the Scot,s, nae mair, nae mair.

    4. Roboscot says:

      Excellent article Andrew. Another unappetising parallel is how London has reacted to all the other movements for independence from London rule.

    5. Brian MacLeod says:

      The imperial delusion…

      I wonder what their problem is? – looks like the born to rule elite don’t like the natives exercising democratic rights.

    6. Croompenstein says:

      Good piece Andrew, I think we should answer the Chairchoobs statement in the HOC that we shouldn’t ‘celebrate’ Bannockburn because it glorifies the death of thousands of Englishmen (he didn’t mention the Scots) by really going for it on the 700th anniversary of our forebears freeing themselves from tyrannical overlordship. I think as many of us should turn up at Bannockburn not as supporters of indy but as ordinary Scots who wish to remember. Bannockburn should be celebrated the First world war should be commemorated

    7. Midgehunter says:

      United we stand – divided you fall.

      Nothing’s really changed over the centuries just the disguise.

    8. Lanarkist says:

      The rough sueing.

      We will have to call their bluff. Secure a Yes and start negotiations and see if they will play ball. If they decide that negotiations cannot be concluded and attempt to revert to the status quo we must conduct a flash UDI.

      Scotland has already voted to hold a referendum by giving the SNP a huge majority in 2011 and the Sovereignty of the people should hold fast if we vote yes then are denied our wishes. It may come down to voting on the removal of the monarch and thus the Westminster Parliament.

      Interesting times but better than Wars of Independence, see Ukraine, Turkey, Thailand, Egypt, Libya, etc, etc…

    9. liz says:

      logging in

    10. kininvie says:

      There’s a strange added wobble to the site this morning. Sometimes it’s showing Stu as author of the above, sometimes not.
      Lest the poor Rev gets blamed for any inaccuracies, may I clarify that the article was written by me, and I take full responsibility for all errors, unjustified rants, etc etc.

    11. Mealer says:

      Post referendum,the International community will expect Scotland and rUK to conduct negotiations in the right spirit and within the framework of international law to come to a fair and reasonable outcome.And under international law,there isn’t that much room for manoeuvre.If England are unreasonable and intransigent and outwith law in their negotiating position the International community will welcome Scotland as an independent country even if England doesn’t agree.If Scotland is unreasonable and intransigent and outwith law they won’t.All the current bluff,bluster and bully coming from London at the moment will count for nothing in post referendum negotiations.Pragmatism will be the order of the day.rUK doesn’t make up rules for the world to follow,though I’m not sure if they always remember that.

    12. themadmurph says:

      great piece Rev. Until now, the proposal has been a very sensible affair. Everything about the white paper is reasoned, even including the proposal to back their much vaunted permanent in the security council.

      Despite the accusations from the other side, the Braveheart card has only ever been played by them. It might yet be our ace in the pack. Because not only are we winning the logical and economic arguments, we’ll win the heart arguments too.

      So, just for the record – FREEDOM!!

    13. themadmurph says:

      Sorry great piece Andrew! (*blush*)

    14. sneddon says:

      As you write it goes all the way back, even the Canmores. They just can’t help themselves and to be sure there isn’t a shortage of welf serving scots willing to help them to feather their own wee nests. And like the last times in the end it won’t work.

    15. liz says:

      Yesterday was a strange day.

      I usually have a look at the guardian but was astonished at the comments BTL.

      The absolute belief of most of the comments were ‘how very dare they?’

      I gave it some thought and have come to a conclusion – as an aside the %vote – should Scotland share a currency with the rUK was 59% yes, so I know they don’t all think the same – was that the £ sterling has become a new religion for a very large number of people in the south.

      The BoE is a new church.

      I think this is due to all the other British institutions failing one by one.
      Monarchy – less respect post Di,
      Politicians – ditto re expenses,
      Police – ditto re numerous reasons, kettling, shooting innocent people, lying,
      NHS – ditto re privatisation.

    16. setondene says:

      …’Scottish independence wasn’t actually legal’

      Stu, I think you’ve put your finger on something that’s caused friction and misunderstanding between the Scots and the English. A number of English people have mentioned this ‘fact’ over the years. It wouldn’t be surprising if they were taught in school that Scotland had always been an English possession, insofar as they were taught anything at all about Scotland. It’s to do with King John (Balliol) of Scotland offering feudal submission to Edward 1st of England, and I think there was an earlier Scottish king who offered a feudal submission over some lands. From memory, an English king also offered feudal submission to a French king over lands in France, but apparently that doesn’t count. I’ve also seen brief mention in English history books of the ‘disaster of Bannockburn’.

      Therefore, it may be that English people have never regarded the Scots as anything other than troublesome rebels.

    17. Vincent McDee says:

      Oh tempora, oh mores.

      They can not even conceive we can do as we please without their permission.

      Is so Downton Abbey it could be a BBC proyect.

    18. DanTDog says:

      Thanks for the reminder, Andrew. Many people also forget, or are unaware of, England’s part in the failure of Darien. They couldn’t afford for Scotland to succeed, so ensured she couldn’t by stopping supplies and fresh settlers through blockades…at a time when we were, supposedly, friendly partners. Leopards,spots…same old. Time for the Lion Rampant to roar…Aye!!

    19. themadmurph says:

      aha, so the wobble may take away my blushing. I thought I’d read it was the Rev. when I read the piece and then commented. Only when I was reading through the comments I thought oops! Either way, wobble or not, great piece!

    20. setondene says:

      Oops, sorry Stu, I didn’t read right through your post. Stupid me. Still, great minds think alike and all that.

    21. Juteman says:

      At least this time we can see what the rogues are up to.

    22. setondene says:

      Double apology, it was Andrew Leslie, not Stu! That’ll teach me to pay attention.

    23. Wayne says:

      This is dreadful stuff, I thought sweeping generalisations about our history is what the Britnats did, and that we had moved beyond this.

      Let’s keep to the future thank you rather than trying to construct some pitiful bullying/victim narrative based on a highly selective and teleological approach to our national past. It is frankly unbecoming and intellectually disingenuous. It is the sort of lousy meta-narrative which only helps to add weight to some of our opponents cruder stereotypes of us.

    24. setondene says:

      If I remember my history correctly, one of the threats that England saw in a failure to secure the 1707 Union was an announcement by the Scots that they were considering establishing a standing army. Scottish armies prior to then had been raised through levies, i.e. aristocratic conscription.

      From an English point of view a Scottish standing army would only have one purpose and that was to stand up to English military bullying. Perhaps a lesson here for today.

    25. Seasick Dave says:

      Just checking in again.

    26. liz says:

      Re the feudal submission – there was a programme on the BBC recently about the Anglo-Saxons by Michael Wood and he made a claim, which I thought was a bit astonishing, that there were several kings – at the time of areas such as Lothian and Orkney – who paid homage to the King of southern Britain – can’t remember who – but there was no actual evidence to support this.

      He said the Welsh did the same and therefore this made this king – the king of a united britain.

      He neglected to mention that there were several other kings – eg, Strathclyde – who did not agree to this situation.

      He also said this agreement broke down shortly after.

      He extroplated to say that they – the Scots and Welsh – were still having the same difficult conversation to the present day.

    27. HandandShrimp says:

      Edaward I was quite adamant that he had claim over he Scotland. He came north and stated this. The Scottish nobles said
      “Where did you see this written down?”
      Edward said
      “Wikipedia”
      and the nobles replied
      “Citation please?”
      Edward said
      “Oh bugger”

    28. handclapping says:

      Its not bullying, its just that they are entitled to everything because they are. Sort of like Descartes’ “I think therefore I am”, I am Westminster therefore its mine.

    29. Murray McCallum says:

      Thanks Andrew.

      I think it very useful to see some historical context to the choices we face today. I could imagine the passionate political debates as we crossed from the end of the 17th century and into the 18th century.

      Osborne came to our capital city, made all sorts of threats, and then ran off without answering any questions. It was all about stating the way it must be. Scots have no rights – they have contributed nothing to the economic infrastructure of the United Kingdom they jointly created.

      The ‘No’ campaign are constantly repeating this message – we are nothing without England and we are incapable of doing things ourselves.

      In light of this weeks events, if you are an undecided voter thinking about additional powers after a ‘No’ vote, do you honestly think Osborne, Cameron, Balls and Miliband are going to grant Scotland anything meaningful?

      This is why there is no 3rd option on the ballot paper. Vote ‘Yes’ if you want Scotland to decide how it runs its affairs without people like Osborne butting in.

    30. pmcrek says:

      Perfidious Albion as they say on the continent.

    31. Lanarkist says:

      At the time of the Alien Act and after the ‘vote’ in 1707 Scotland were disbarred from trading with any of England’s historic enemies, thus at a stroke cutting our commerce to virtually nil and our influence with our historic trading and cultural partners were nullified.

      It all sounds horribly familiar, our trade goes through Ports in England and so counts on their ledger not ours, our produce, if not taken south for processing and up-valuing and then sold back to us for extended profit , likewise.

      Culturally we are filtered through Embassies where they can further profit and control influence and diminish our voice in the world.

      Does anyone think that having achieved Independence we will not have to countenance further interference and financial manipulation.

      The long war will still be operational if only to scupper our chances for the cheek of cocking a snook at the establishment.

      The damn cheek, how very dare they!

    32. Eric says:

      They cannot cage an idea. They cannot control the Scottish zeitgeist through hegemony.
      Social media is today’s battleground … But it is not a war that can be won through threat and blackmail.

      We live in a global village. Residents of Scotland are much better informed these days. Many of us have experienced the history of the last 50 years. This has been punitive for Scotland.

      Residents of Scotland seek only the right to manage their own finances, economy and government. We have approached this right peacefully, democratically and collaboratively.

      Few of us fail to recognize that Scotland and England are and will be interdependent for many more centuries. (Economically, politically, socially and geographically)

      It is a great shame that Westminster is devoid of statesmen or leaders … Because Eton schoolboys and labour lackeys do not have the wherewithal to understand what they are doing to Britain with there medieval political strategies.

    33. kininvie says:

      @jingly jangly

      I left out Cromwell, mostly for reasons of length, but also because the events of 1647-1654 were the consequence of an ongoing civil war, so don’t quite fit the pattern. I’d argue that the conflict between the English Republic and Charles II + covenanters was in fact a war about the governance (and religion) of the whole of Britain (much like the ’45). Charles II lost and Scotland was summarily annexed, through the ‘Tender of Union’ in 1654. There wasn’t much legal justification for this other than ‘spoils of war’ – but that sufficed.

    34. Helena Brown says:

      Well said Andrew, one day we will actually see our history told correctly on Television, not endless reruns of the Tudors.

    35. benarmine says:

      Excellent Andrew, thanks. Why couldn’t we have been stuck on the island with someone reasonable. Just as well England isn’t on mainland Europe, they would claim the lot.

    36. sneddon says:

      Some background to the swearing of fealty. The difference Bruce made was that scottish nobles could no longer swear fealty to anyone other than the King of Scots, whereas before many nobles ,including kings, had sworn fealty for their lands in England to the english king as their fuedal overlord in England , whom in many cases had given them the lands or they had inherited those lands via marriage or from their original norman ancestors. This was common and led to the ‘misunderstanding’ they were swearing fealty for all of their lands to the english king. This was common until Bruce basically forced the scottish nobility to choose scotti shor english identity a earth shattering concept in those early days of nation building.

    37. john king says:

      here a cracker from the comments on Osbournes stupid foray north I had to pick this one up with a pair of tongs, now Im away to disinfect my hands

      “But market forces ARE the right solution for creating wealth … just look at how Eastern Europe has prospered since the fall of Communism. It is not the fault of the Tories or the South East of England (in fact, much of England) that they have embraced the free market, whilst the Scots (and the Welsh, the Liverpudlians and others) have continued to believe the world owes them a living. The incessant whinging of the Scots, coupled with their nasty streak of xenophobia against the English, is irritating to say the least … if they want to be independent and pay for themselves then I say good riddance. Without the money-making machine of South East England propping them up, they will soon discover the drawbacks of socialism.”

      hope no one was eating soup at their computer 🙂

    38. Ann says:

      Never a truer comment Midgehunter.

      It’s an unfortunate trait of the Scots and is as much prevalent today as it was 700+ years ago.

      Only difference this time is that the rich and feudal lords don’t have the final say.

      For the first time in 300 years it will be the “ordinary” Scots who will be marking their cards on 18th September.

    39. K Mackay says:

      0 comments, that can’t be right. Think I’m starting to see what folk mean about the DDOS attacks messing up the way comments appear. I think it’s only really become an issue on my computer since I started posting comments again, don’t know if that means anything toanyone who knows about these things.

      Great article Andrew, that first line about wondering if the wars of independence are actually over is brilliant. Really nice perspective in a way because I used to think of 1707 as us giving up our fight for independence but actually from this perspective it was just another instance of our nobles (some of them) caving in to threats and undermining from the south.

      The situation’s always been the same, the English elite always seeking to control Scotland and now we’re back in the part of the cycle where we stand up against overwhelming odds and reclaim our country. The patterns of history are on our side, we just need to make sure we keep our freedom this time. But that’s maybe getting ahead of myself a bit, best concentrate on getting it back first 🙂

    40. fairiefromtheearth says:

      So Rev whats the repaccutions after we vote yes, MI6 arming the loyalists?

    41. James Westland says:

      I love that Daily Hate editorial.

      “Is Union sleepwalking towards poll disaster?” as if that were a bad thing!

      “Alistair Darling may be an able man” PMSL…..

      “will have gone down like a lead haggis” Jings, crivvens, help ma boab, jist aboot pished ma kilt laughin at that….

      “proud Scots” no comment needed

      “slippery and increasingly cynical Mr Salmond.” – Who will hand you your arse on a plate if you dont watch out.

      “Major figures such as Gordon Brown, Sir Alex Ferguson and the many successful Scots based south of the border must start making their voices heard.” Gordon brown? Who he? Awfully quiet these days….

      And then near the bottom of the editorial there is a massive Butchers Apron. FAIL!

    42. caz-m says:

      @Wayne

      Surely we have to use our history so we can create and compare comparisons with the past and the present.

      700 years ago they threatened the Scots so much that it culminated in the Battle of Bannockburn on June 24th 1314

      Today they are again threatening us and will culminate at the Polls on 18th Sept.2014

      Which will again be another victory for Scots with a resounding YES vote.

    43. Croompenstein says:

      @Wayne – lighten up the article is called a little bit of history repeating, Andrew is merely drawing parallels between the past and present, we are maybe not called to arms but the parallels are there. Scotland is not, never has been, and never will be an equal partner in the ‘United’ Kingdom

    44. fairiefromtheearth says:

      I like watching History documentarys and everytime a democratic system overthroughs a Dictatorship the western FREE democratic countrys allways seem to overthrough the democratic choice of the people and put a new dictator in.

    45. Jill P says:

      A great article, Andrew. I’ll be sending lots of people to read it.

    46. DanTDog says:

      “Wayne says:
      15 February, 2014 at 12:20 pm

      This is dreadful stuff, I thought sweeping generalisations about our history is what the Britnats did, and that we had moved beyond this.

      Let’s keep to the future thank you rather than trying to construct some pitiful bullying/victim narrative based on a highly selective and teleological approach to our national past. It is frankly unbecoming and intellectually disingenuous. It is the sort of lousy meta-narrative which only helps to add weight to some of our opponents cruder stereotypes of us.”

      Wayne…without understanding the past, we risk our future. Many times over the life of the “Union”, promises have been made and, completely and cavalierly, discarded once the desired result has been achieved.It is better that we remain on our guard and be proved wrong, no matter how unlikely I think that would be, than to enter blindly into repetition of past mistakes.

      Eric is absolutely right…this latest clash of ideologies and cultures will be won and lost through social media sites such as this, and the more enlightenment we can shed, the better.I do not trust Westminster to “play the game”…they never have unless to their own advantage.

    47. crisiscult says:

      This is a nice link to our history. I have to say that the events of the last few days seem, anecdotally, to be pushing switherers into the yes camp. For myself, I was already a yes but not based on Scottish identity but on social issues and anger at the neo liberal extreme capitalist direction of the UK. I now feel that I’m being pushed into a choice of being British or Scottish in identity, and I, like the 2011 census and recent Yougov poll illustrate, am one of a majority who when asked am Scottish (as is mirrored in England for those who identify themselves as English not British). Anyway, switherers I spoke to are angry and the way they are being spoken to.

      It’s a shame if the debate goes in this direction but if it does, the result is more likely to be a yes.

    48. Pilar says:

      O/T

      We had the great pleasure of interviewing Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh in Santiago de Compostela (Galiza) yesterday. She was participating in the Assembly of European Free Alliance. This is link if you want to listen:

      http://pilaraymara.blogspot.com.es/2014/02/interview-with-tasmina-ahmed-sheikh-in.html

    49. john king says:

      Wayne
      Those who do not know history’s mistakes are doomed to repeat them

      http://wingsoverscotland.com/tag/claimofscotland/

    50. fairiefromtheearth says:

      and whats going to happen when the vote returned is 55%no 45%yes and 80% of the people you know voted yes?

    51. heedtracker says:

      ” looks as though it will be terminally poisoned by those who cannot break free of the chains of history.” They’ve got six months, how bad can it get?

      English CiF online is littered with all kinds of vote No nastiness but there is a visceral determination to stop Scotland existing as a nation again. Took the ipad to the boozer after work yesterday and showed round that Falkirk Hood MP’s f the Scots youtube bile but my English family and friends can be equally as adamant that Scotland is too poor, wee, stupid, Oil’s going, Salmond’s a fraudster etc. The stupid one is all about Edinburgh trams, Holyrood build cost, crappy Scots NHS, potholes and why should oil rich Aberdeen pay the dole in Glasgow. Basically, it was boozy BetterTogether,BBC,Scotsman stuff they’ve had fed to them daily by our friends in Pacific Quay, read back verbatim.

      But listening to this vote NO were Scots and afterward, they all want Scotland to be a nation, all of them, quietly though.

    52. balgayboy says:

      Well it’s now the 21st century and the days of the Ed’s & Balloil’s are well in the past including the associated feudalism and servitude loving followers.

      Today and tomorrow are what matters and if these BT dinosaurs want to maintain this status quo then hell mend them.

      No more mistakes this time and no more selfish bastards deciding Scotland’s future this time.

    53. The essential problem lies in an insular, island people unable to view any “outsider” as anything but “foreign.”

      Historically, English are hyper-suspicious of foreigners, distrusting them particularly intellectuals, driving both elsewhere, usually abroad.

      One of the swiftest taunts thrown at independence from London politicians is how much they don’t want a “foreign” country in their backyard, “their” backyard seemingly stretching from Plymouth to the Highlands, and all seas around.

      Labour in Scotland alter the dirge slightly to, “We don’t want to be a foreign country,” a decidedly bizarre attitude to think of one’s own country as “foreign.”

      In the debate over Scotland’s self-governance overnight, we are described as a foreign country, rather in the form of a Hollywood sci-fi movie, or a lost land hidden in a jungle.

      But that’s how English have always seen Scotland and the Scots, indeed any “foreigner” in their midst, their worst dislike surely for an intellectual Scot who is Jewish.

      Amongst many admirable qualities, the dislike of outsiders is ingrained and endemic, the most detestible in English culture. Tebbit expressed it when identifying an English patriot as any foreigner who cheers the English cricket team. Ukip both exemplify it and exploit it.

      (I’ll post an essay on the subject on my blogsite shortly: grousebeater.wordpress)

    54. Lindsey Smith says:

      It seems that the law only applies to Scotland and England/rUK does not recognise any sanctions. It is a mindset and MO that has worked for them for centuries. The current government has the same upper crust elite as all those years ago, so they have the same sense of entitlement that blinds them to the fact that this is not 14th C anymore.

    55. fairiefromtheearth says:

      LOL union trools lets not worry about yesterday(history), of course thats because the British are notorius for backstabbing but hey just forget about that, lets look forward, forward to when Anas Sarwar promices a Free Independant Scotland everything the SNP has been promising yea ANAS for First Minister,oh i forgot the union press said that would change to Chanceller See we really want to be Germany 1930, the nest World War will get blamed on us lovers of freedom the EMPIRE is good they only want to protect you from the boogie men.

    56. Glass Girl says:

      Did anyone see the episode of The Stuarts on Thursday night? I caught the very end of it as I was flicking but they pretty much glossed over the whole act of union as Scotland being bankrupt after Darien and England selflessly and gallantly sweeping in to save her for the low low price of forfeiting her sovereignty. I think I threw a few choice words and middle digits at the TV before switching it off.

    57. ericmac says:

      @wayne Do please enlighten us with your superior interpretation.

      There are many things that may be considered in this debate including economics, politics, culture and our shared history.

      “…It is the sort of lousy meta-narrative which only helps to add weight to some of our opponents cruder stereotypes of us…”

      That is their weakness, not ours. Intelligent people do look to history for explanations. Andrew’s piece was one view and very relevant.

      Were we in a republic and proper modern democracy instead of under an elitist, archaic and self-serving Westminster linked to centuries old monarchy and tradition, I’d have slightly more sympathy with your view.

      Unfortunately, your argument falls flat on its face, because this country’s politics, law and government is heavily rooted in history.

      I rather think it is you who is disingenuous.

    58. Morag says:

      Rock

    59. liz says:

      Murray McCallum – exactly.
      You could have had more respect for the man if he had argued his case with Q & A like Nicola did in London.

      She spoke and took Qs for 1.5 hours,

      Instead he ran in, lobbed a decision and then literally ran away.
      And folk were decsribing him as ‘statesman -like’.

      Why even bother coming to Edinburgh – he could have done that on Skype?

      If it wasn’t so patheic it would be laughable.

    60. Paul Wilson says:

      If Westminster keeps doing what it is doing then a declaration of UDI should re focus their tiny minds.

    61. Les Wilson says:

      Well, thinking this through, there are now dangers all round, for both nations. Certainly the path now chosen by Westminster harks back to colonialism not a partnership that we thought we had. There is now a danger of embitterment creeping in, and it IS being caused by Westminster. The new stunt and threat is that they will dismiss the will of the Scottish people in event of a YES vote.

      Which they have just helped by a country mile own goal.Other countries must be watching this aghast at Westminster’s latest panic moves, which are negative to the very democracy they pretend to export to the rest of the world. They look increasingly diminished in world eyes, and condemnation will start creeping in from across the globe.
      The International reputation the so want to cling to is beginning to rip and all their own doing.

      In the end, yes, they could hurt us through spite and fear brought on by fear of their own position. The Scottish ideals, do not even come into it, they only care for themselves. So we bend to all this or we disregard it, with proud intent of having our own Nation once again strongly to the fore. They can and certainly can hurt us, mostly by financial shenanigans, but at the same time crucify themselves at the same time.

      Nevertheless, we have many strengths also, we need to play them right in order to walk out of the storm. Now’s the day and now’s the hour………

    62. fairiefromtheearth says:

      the only thing you have to remember about history is its HIS STORY unless you have 10 diffrent links to varyfie it its just HIS STORY nothing else.

    63. hetty says:

      checking in…

      Great article, shared and distributed on fb and twitter. The arrows for page navigation have gone and my details not saved like they used to be. The spies almost had me down as ‘anonymous’.

    64. Archie [not Erchie] says:

      log in

    65. Bugger (the Panda) says:

      jingly jangly says:
      15 February, 2014 at 11:32 am

      No Mention of Cromwell?

      Gideon George Oliver Osbourne is the heir apparent to the Baronetcy of Osbourne. The Osbournes are an old Anglo Irish family which are colloquially called by their Irish peasantry The Ascendency.

      -says it all really.

    66. rabb says:

      Great piece Kininvie.

      A while back I was still a “Royalist Yes” voter.

      During the last year and after some considerable soul searching my settled will is to abolish the monarchy. This article has served as a good sanity check for me and backs up my reasoning.

      The trouble that monarchies have caused us throughout history is quite remarkable.

      That particular baton has now been picked up by Westminster. For me this highlights the need to cut all political and monarchy ties with England.

      I appreciate the economic difficulties on both sides of the border but for me it’s now imperative that we raise our own currency, forge our own trade links overseas and ditch the monarchy. We must endeavour to ensure that we are never reliant on trade with one country.

      I travel between Scotland & England on an almost weekly basis but a border post wouldn’t even bother me now after Gideon’s intervention!

      Having said all of the above, the friendships I have forged with friends & colleagues in England over the years will forever remain rock solid.

    67. Marcia says:

      a new thread has started

    68. cynicalHighlander says:

      Posting after john at No 37 even though post Nos registered 60+!

      http://wingsoverscotland.com/a-little-bit-of-history-repeating/#comment-802900

    69. Patrician says:

      very good article Andrew. I find this history still has resonance today. when speaking to people about the referendum, I occasionally come across people who state something along the lines of “I would vote yes but they they won’t let us go”.

      Sometime ago, as an experiment, I created a list of the different types of no voter. I wasn’t sure how to categorise people who made this type of statement but I have now decided that it is best described as the mindset of an occupied nation. They want independence but dont think they will be allowed it and are afraid of the consequences of that choice.

    70. Jamie Arriere says:

      As the song says, These days are past now and in the past they must remain….though I do giggle at the thought of Cameron drawing up another Ragman Roll and all the Scottish Unionist MPs signing it…(Sarwar would fly back from Pakistan to sign it)

      What’s the next line of that song again…?

    71. Triangular Ears says:

      O/T, sorry, but I’m just back from Better Together’s Rutherglen and Cambuslang launch day, where a friend and I bit our tongues and pretended we were ignorant, ill-informed unionists.

      It ran from 10.30 to 11.30. Speakers were Robert Brown, James Kelly and Rob Shorthouse. I don’t know who the female chairperson was. I’m not sure she gave her name.

      They gave out leaflets which STILL said the UK has a AAA credit rating, amongst other outright lies.

      I counted 88 seats, mostly full, with another dozen or so standing, so I’d put the attendance at about 100. They wanted everyone to register (and reiterated this when wrapping up) but we just sat straight down and ignored it.

      All three speakers made short uninspiring speeches, full of lies and assertions. Unsurprisingly the currency issue was mentioned with clear statements that we would no longer have the pound. Everything was about the SNP and Salmond, not Yes. Robert Brown brought up that he was born in the north of England and didn’t want his family to become foreigners. Yawn.

      Anyway, the most interesting part was the question and answer session. The very first question was an old guy of 80 who stood straight up and started an angry exchange before even getting the microphone. He said “What has 60 years of voting Labour got us? The Tories.”. The chairperson rudely asked if he had a question. It was clear that the panel were rattled. He said “Yes. What was Cameron doing in Moscow? Getting back-up!”.

      Gasps and tuts in the audience ensued with comments like “We’ve got some Yes voters in here.”

      The second question was a religious guy, who I kinda recognised but can’t quite remember where from. He rambled on about God bringing us together and that he was Scottish and British and didn’t really have a question.

      The third question was “What currency would Labour be arguing for if we vote Yes?”. The panel didn’t answer and twice the guy in the audience loudly said that they didn’t answer his question.

      The fourth question was from a guy who was worried about how they were going to challenge stuff from the SNP about childcare, for example. No real answers from the panel here.

      So 3/4 of the first questions were not on script at all!

      There was also a question from a young guy with an epic beard who said he was a socialist and undecided who had been to some Yes meetings and was wanting to hear what BT had to say. No real answers were given to him.

      A lady said that she was very uncomfortable with Osborne’s intervention and felt that it had been very unhelpful to BT’s cause.

      There was a very interesting point from an old guy who had a son in the marines, posted down south. He said he was annoyed that his son didn’t have a vote and that he had contacted loads of people. He said that Gordon Brown had been the most helpful and had a letter from him where, apparently, Gordon Brown stated that forces personnel can use FORMER addresses NO MATTER HOW LONG THEY LAST STAYED THERE, to register for a vote and that there was NO TIME LIMIT on this. Can anyone confirm if this is true? Surely this can’t be true? I can see it being the case if you are posted abroad, but not if posted down south surely with a new house there? We are the same country after all. 😉

      I would say that at least half the questions were from undecideds, Yes spies or people deeply concerned about how its going. One guy asked why they are focusing on big business and said that they should be supporting smaller businesses. I think he was meaning the UK government, not Better Together!

      There was also a daft mini-speech from the floor by a Labour councillor (Russell Cleary, I’m told) who came out with “No, no and no again!” as if he fancied himself as some sort of Martin Luther King. He came out with stuff about the Scottish Government cutting South Lanarkshire’s budget but spending money on campaigning.

      Only Rob Shorthouse did a wrap-up where he came out with this quote of the day:

      “We don’t have the foot-soldiers yet.”

      All in all, I’d say they were rattled and the audience seemed deeply concerned about the way things were going, and pretty worried about BT’s performance.

    72. Triangular Ears says:

      BTW, the BT launch was in Rutherglen Town Hall.

    73. msean says:

      The Romans built a wall to seperate the two,we,re still here,and in a modern way,still struggling away.I seem to recall reading some where that when he took the stone and booted Balliol,Edward 1 also said Scotland was extinguished,now the Act of Union is supposed to mean the same.

      We are still here,2000 years later. 🙂

    74. Patrick Roden says:

      I see the Mail is now having a pop at Alistair darling for his leadership/debating style.

      it seems increasingly, that the establishment don’t think they are ‘Better Together’ with the ‘Thunderbird man’

    75. Clootie says:

      Scotland was divided by Whitehall and remains divided by Whitehall.
      They attempt to turn Rich against Poor. Protestant against Catholic. Citizen against Immigrant. The electroral system was designed to ensure the split between Parties of the Union could never be out voted by those seeking Independence.

      I want a country that ends these false divisions. The bigots and the wealthy only gain ground when the system permits it.

      Things only remain the same if we accept the rules which have been designed to favour or discriminate.

      We have enabled this campaign against a rigged political system in order to have a referendum.
      We will win the referendum despite the manipulation of a bias media supporting lies,intimidation and threats.
      We will build a better, fairer Scotland.

      It will not be easy or perfect but it will be much better than the slow death of our nation by the London elite and their servants.

      My greatest disgust is for those Scottish Labour politicians (elected and unelected) who have sold out their own nation for a few crumbs from their “betters”. This is the true meaning of better together.

    76. The Rough Bounds says:

      ‘Is that the dawn approaching, or is it the glint of a spear?’

    77. Taranaich says:

      @Setondene: I think you’ve put your finger on something that’s caused friction and misunderstanding between the Scots and the English. A number of English people have mentioned this ‘fact’ over the years. It wouldn’t be surprising if they were taught in school that Scotland had always been an English possession, insofar as they were taught anything at all about Scotland. It’s to do with King John (Balliol) of Scotland offering feudal submission to Edward 1st of England, and I think there was an earlier Scottish king who offered a feudal submission over some lands. From memory, an English king also offered feudal submission to a French king over lands in France, but apparently that doesn’t count. I’ve also seen brief mention in English history books of the ‘disaster of Bannockburn’.

      Therefore, it may be that English people have never regarded the Scots as anything other than troublesome rebels.

      That king you recall was William the Lion. When he was captured at the Battle of Alnwick in an attempt to regain Northumbria from the Normans, he swore fealty to Henry II in the Treaty of Falaise – a treaty which only lasted 15 years. Centuries beforehand, Constantine recognized Athelstan as his superior after the very poorly understood Battle of Brunanburh, along with Owain of then-independent Kingdom of Strathclyde.

      I’m pretty sure this infuriating tendency for Scottish kings to submit to English kings in the interests of self-preservation (insert your own comparisons to current Scottish “leaders” here) inspired the famous “if the king doesn’t put Scotland first, we’ll drive him out as the enemy” part of the Declaration of Arbroath. When England did their parliament, they simply replaced the king’s sovereignty with parliament’s. In Scotland, the people are sovereign. Completely different worldview that persists to this day.

      @Wayne: Let’s keep to the future thank you rather than trying to construct some pitiful bullying/victim narrative based on a highly selective and teleological approach to our national past. It is frankly unbecoming and intellectually disingenuous. It is the sort of lousy meta-narrative which only helps to add weight to some of our opponents cruder stereotypes of us.

      Wayne, there comes a point where it stops “constructing” a bullying/victim narrative and starts actually BEING a bullying/victim narrative. Scots have been bullied in the past, and if you think Westminster’s decree that the Scottish people would be denied access to their own currency as anything but bullying, then I guess I can’t help but disagree.

      If you really believe this, it would be helpful if you could point out exactly what was lousy, unbecoming or intellectually disingenuous about anything Andrew’s said: as far as I can see, it’s all factually sound and doesn’t make any outlandish extrapolations.

      In any case, the Scottish people’s account of the past has already been heavily skewed in favour of the English: why else are Scottish defeats like the Standard, Flodden, Falkirk, Solway Moss & Pinkie Cleugh more famous than Scottish victories like Ancrum Moor, Old Byland, Haddon Rig, Otterburn or Redeswire? Why are so many Scottish achievements either hijacked as “British” or simply ignored? Because Britain sets the agenda, and Scotland always came second.

      @Triangular Ears: The third question was “What currency would Labour be arguing for if we vote Yes?”. The panel didn’t answer and twice the guy in the audience loudly said that they didn’t answer his question.

      Well of course they didn’t: with the way they keep going on about Salmond, Labour are practically trying to convince voters that they don’t stand a chance against the SNP in an indy Scotland. Why would they have any policies if their entire campaign is predicated on the SNP remaining in power?

    78. Heather says:

      Following on from ‘Triangular Ears’ I was also at the Rutherglen Townhall Better Together meeting and I wanted to add some more notes:

      After the 3rd question re ‘what currency would Labour advocate in the event of a yes vote’ a female audience member aggressively hollered ‘we’re here because we are voting no’. She actually came out of her chair and it was all a bit over the top really.

      When the person asking the 3rd question pointed out he had not been provided with an answer Rob Stonehouse stated ‘I’ll answer that for you sir (patronising or what)’ then turning to face the room he says ‘you see what happens at these meeting is that Yes supporters crash the meeting and ask questions that they hope will disrupt proceedings’.

      The person said that still didn’t answer the question so both Rob Shorthouse and Robert Brown said it is not for them to provide answers (Robert Brown specifying he anticipates a No vote) but it is for ‘The SNP’ to provide all the answers essentially because the SNP are going against the Status Quo

      And add hoc comment from Ron Shorthouse came in the form of ‘I don’t want to have to point to a map in the future and explain to my daughter that the people in the North thought they were better than the people in the South and so they built a wall’.

      A local doctor stated that a lot of his patients attend due to stress as a result of unsociable neighbours. Apparently only 3 of his patients have ever moved because of this and all three were English. Therefore the conclusion is that people in Scotland with an English accent are bullied into moving home. He then stated that it is everyone responsibility to make everyone know that the core of the Yes campaign is around England hating. Thank goodness there is only 215 days left of this utter mince to put up with. It hurts my brain the amount of nonsense these people spout.

      The most shocking aspect though was the letter from Gordon Brown. The gentlemen had the letter in his hand and actually read from it. Gordon Brown states that service men (and woman) can vote by using a previous address. The comment I would like to add was that he said (and the gentleman was careful to point this out) ‘even if there is no longer a connection’. I take it from that he means you could use your parents address but failing that you can use an address you previously lived in even if no one living there has any connection to you. Can some one confirm? Is this electoral fraud that the former PM is suggesting? I just wish I could have obtained a copy of this letter. None of the panel did anything to dispute this however I will say that Rob Shorthouse said that it is worth all service personel making enquiries but all situations are different.

      All in all the ramblings of the whole meeting was less than inspiring. It is clear they are realising they are on a back footing. This was the LAUNCH party. The LAUNCH party for crying out loud. Maybe they think that it’s fashionable to turn up late to the party but I think that doesn’t quite apply to this debate.

    79. Triangular Ears says:

      Catching up…

    80. theycan'tbeserious says:

      Excellent article Andrew. Why is it that we Scot’s are made to feel bad and backward when we mention our history within a political context. Grow up Scotland, grow a pair and tell the world of you ancient and proud history. Sod Westminster, sod the “proud Scot’s and sod anyone else that would have you believe it is irrelevant and makes us backward (wayne).

      I love my country, I love it’s history and I love it’s patriots/independence fighters and I will not be told by anyone and especially not Westminster unionists how to celebrate my countries history and historical figures.

      If you want to be emotional about your country and it’s past, present or future please do so and fuck those “proud Scot’s that are so brow beaten and believe themselves and everything Scottish worthless!

    81. chicmac says:

      @Taranaich

      The establishment writes and rewrites history.

      Nothing new in that or indeed unique to the English establishment.

      For example, the three battles in one day in 1303 , culminating in Roslin Glen were so downplayed by the Bruce establishment that little is known of them, even though some reckon they could have been as pivotal in the WoI as Bannockburn.

      Why? because they, and Wallace’s alleged, but uncertain involvement, were perceived as being on the Balliol side of the fence. That is also why Wallace is posted absent from Barbour’s ‘The Bruce’.

      OTOH Bruce himself suffers from downplaying of his part, against his father’s wishes, in joining the initial uprising. He even tried, but failed, to persuade his father’s own retinue to follow him but had to make do with his own smaller support.

      And of course, another example of historical rewriting was when Edward I burned any Scottish documents he could find in an attempt to extinguish Scotland’s claim to national sovereignty.

      Edward I had other characteristics which are almost proto-nazi. Apart from invading every neighbouring country, he was, I believe, the first ruler in Europe (since the Romans) to carry out a holocaust on the Jews. Other countries had temporarily exiled or forcibly converted them on occasions (because of money lending) but he was, I believe, the first to make it permanent and to kill thousands of them as well.

      Luckily, for Scotland, his son was nowhere nearly as ruthless.

      For me, the most remarkable event in the uprising was not Wallace’s support, or the young Bruce’s or Bishop Wishart’s efforts in the West or Moray’s victories in the far North, but the successful uprising in Aberdeen and the North East, because that apparently happened without any identifiable local leadership at all.

    82. crisiscult says:

      Heather

      Re your point about using others’ addresses to register, I’m afraid I don’t know much about this but hope someone here can enlighten us because I have a colleague whose parents moved to Ireland from Scotland a long time ago, and now live in Italy for most of the year, but intend to use her address in order to vote in Sep. I didn’t ask for which side they’ll vote, but regardless, it’s a bit worrying that people can get round the system this way (however it is that the system works)

    83. Morag says:

      Crisiscult, if the householder is prepared to declare that these people live there, I think it would be hard to challenge it. There are issues of privacy.

      I suspect this will balance itself out, anyway. It’s not just going to be No people who will do this. I assure you. I’m in no position to be pointing fingers.

      (In the interests of clarity, I should point out that I have really and truly been living in Scotland for more than seven years now. I no longer maintain a pied-a-terre in Sussex to allow me to go to work there every day!)

    84. Andrew Parrott says:

      As I understand it service personnel can vote as if at a previous address wherever else in the world they are posted for as long after they have left that address as they wish as long as they are still serving. They can either vote in person or they can vote postally or they can appoint a proxy to vote for them. The voting rules for service personnel do differ as I understand it from the general rules and one of the reasons they differ is that service personnel ultimately do not have a choice about where they serve.

    85. Seepy says:

      Just a thought about there being no union between Scotland and England. Doesn’t this create a slight problem for people who support the Union?

    86. Taranaich says:

      @Chicmac: The establishment writes and rewrites history.

      Nothing new in that or indeed unique to the English establishment.

      Naturally. It’s such a shame, because there’s so much history throughout the world that has to be viewed through this lens.

      And of course, another example of historical rewriting was when Edward I burned any Scottish documents he could find in an attempt to extinguish Scotland’s claim to national sovereignty.

      Edward I had other characteristics which are almost proto-nazi. Apart from invading every neighbouring country, he was, I believe, the first ruler in Europe (since the Romans) to carry out a holocaust on the Jews. Other countries had temporarily exiled or forcibly converted them on occasions (because of money lending) but he was, I believe, the first to make it permanent and to kill thousands of them as well.

      I think Edward’s treatment of Wales speaks volumes. After conquering Wales, destroying their holy sites, and massacring the nobility, Edward went to Glastonbury – the traditional site of King Arthur’s tomb. The legend of King Arthur returning in the hour of Britain’s greatest need was taken about as seriously as anything involving myth and the supernatural of the time period.

      What Edward did, then, was march to Glastonbury, and exhume the bodies – proving, once and for all, that King Arthur wasn’t coming to save the Britons. They found two skeletons, which were then reburied in England. The holiest relics of Wales – a crown attributed to Arthur, and a piece of the holy cross – were stolen, just as Edward stole the Stone of Destiny.

      Indeed, a few people have suggested Edward may have fancied himself a new Arthur, who took it as his birthright to rule all of Britain. So serious was he, he even demanded his son take a vow never to stop the battle against the Scots until they were vanquished. Edward II kept his vow – he refused to recognize Scotland’s independence up to his death.

      For me, the most remarkable event in the uprising was not Wallace’s support, or the young Bruce’s or Bishop Wishart’s efforts in the West or Moray’s victories in the far North, but the successful uprising in Aberdeen and the North East, because that apparently happened without any identifiable local leadership at all.

      I love that too. This, to me, is what exemplifies the importance of the Wars of Independence – that far from the “Anglo-Norman Feud” certain commentators claim, that Scots only followed the Bruce because he was their lord, this was a genuine movement motivated and aided by the people’s consent.

    87. john macdonald says:

      Being a long-term expat, I rely on WOS for news and views on independence. Beeb’s still fine for ‘Small earthquake in Chile – not many dead’ etc, but don’t look for impartial coverage of the referendum. Maybe that’s why I was slightly surprised by an email from an old Scottish friend, now living in Suffolk, telling me that post-independence, England etc will be known as ‘Former UK’. Hence the slogan “Vote yes, for FUK’s sake!” Must admit, it does have a catchy appeal.

    88. Franariod says:

      In the lead up to the union, who would trade with us? Not the English or Dutch whom we shared monarchy with (our new friends and allies) not our old friends and allies the French and Spanish with whom we were now at war, via our monarchs agendas. Where was the Scottish Navy? Commandeered into the “Royal Navy” as was the possession of the monarch. Who would protect the Scottish merchant fleet from French, Spanish, Dutch and English privateers? No-one as our monarchs refused to intercede. Why did the English navy blockade, board, steal, press-gang Scots vessels on the Clyde and Forth? A story not told in main stream history books and definitely not repeated by our media but well documented in the Scottish Maritime Archives.
      Its the same old, same old Reverend, it is not in their nature to allow us to live and prosper in peace.
      The English ruling classes continue to turn the ordinary Scots and English against each other, very evident with the cessation of ship building at Portsmouth. Although they are now being geared up for maintenance and fit outs of Royal Navy ships which leads to the question of where does that leave Rosyth when the aircraft carriers are built?

    89. Southener says:

      It was appalling to read about Edward 1s slaughter of the people at Berwick Upon Tweed, c1300, on one of the blogs and it promted me to look at who Edward 1 was -as the recounting of the English and Scottish warfare over the centuries generates strong emotion and feelings for many in Scotland against English people.

      The English were ruled by a Norman/Anjou monarchy in the11/12/13th centuries period of history, these monarchs were French speaking ‘Norman’ kings supported by Norman barons placed across England and Wales to dominate the local populations. This process was started in 1066 by The Norman invasion at Hastings.

      The context of the Norman dominated monarchy history seems to of been slewed to try to create divisions between normal decent Scottish/English peoples.

      The reality of Edward 1 was that he was a Norman / Anjou king whose family the Plantagenets ( read Normans ) ruled England along with strategically placed Norman barons in Norman castles throughtout England. The conquered English people were treated abominably c11/12/13 th centuries and were subjugated to to a harsh and inhuman Norman Feudal system.

      Edward 1 was reported as of being French speaking, indeed many of the ‘English’ nobles also spoke French as their first language.

      At his time, there was considerable inter-marriage between the Scottish nobility and that of the England based ‘Norman’ nobility. Edward 1 family had historically ruled the Norman /Anjou region of modern France and when Berwick was ransacked Edward 1 was at war with the ‘French’ ( Eastern France ) ruler to regain Anjou. Scotland sided with the’French’ region in the war and hence the European war spread to the British Isles.

      It also should be mentioned c1700 James Stuart, a Scottish King for 30 years, was King of England when the Union was created. The Stuart monarchy went onto rule the UK for a number of generations.

    90. Southener says:

      Correction.. James Stuart, the Scottish King, was Crowned the King Of Three Nations, c1600 it was another Stuart, Queen Anne, who was monarch when the Union was formed nearly 100 years later.

    91. Roll_On_2014 says:

      Experiment

    92. Barry says:

      yerkitbreeks says:

      ‘Imperialism is deeply ingrained in London, after all the feudalists became the industrialists and associated Liveries which had so much to do with accumulating the Empire’s riches.’

      Layers of glitter cannot hide what is in their blood.

    93. SusanS says:

      Very interesting. This referendum is fair educating me…so it is.

    94. BLMac says:

      The reality is England is Scotland’s oldest continuing enemy.

      The current “peace” is purely because they think we are safely in their box.

      However, just to be on the safe side they are continuing the policy of dismantling Scotland’s industries so we remain dependent.

      After Independence they will revert to type.

      UDI now is the only answer. We take our sovereignty in our own hands and not expect it to be handed over to us as a ‘gift’.



    Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.




    ↑ Top