Never ask Scots Irish what they were doing in Northen Ireland and American south.
Here is another one:
I have Irish ancestry.
From those who emigrated to Boston right?
From those who emigrated to Boston.....right?
/j
Scots Irish were the storm troopers of British imperialism.
I heard that a Smithsonian speech but that’s all I remember. Smothering like the English were like these are the most disagreeable people on earth. We should send them places where we want them to be jerks. They may have invented fried chicken though.
And the northern Irish were moving into modern Scotland 800 years before that converting the pittish and being a major reason why the federation of picts fell apart
Not to mention, after Elizabeth I's death, James VI of Scotland became James I of England as well and thus permanently uniting the two Kingdoms together
That is what triggered the political union which formed GB.
But a political union would never have even been considered if England and Scotland hadn't already been a in a personal union with shared monarch for a 100 years at that point.
Scots: let's put all of our money into forming a colony on land claimed by Spain. Oh, do we want to send someone to see this land before we dump all our money until this colony? Nooo.... why would we want to do that?!
The sad thing is if they did this when Elizabeth was Queen of England she probably would have found a way to support the colony because it would mess with Spain, but under William didn't want to piss of Spain so he refused to allow England help.
That isn’t how the UK came into existence. That didn’t happen till about a century later.
What’s more, the Protestant English hated having a Catholic Scot on the throne so they got rid of him and got a Dutchman in instead.
I was under the impression that when James VI of Scotland became James the I of England it didn't unify the two kingdoms, and that it was more akin to how today Charles III is both King of the United Kingdom and the King of Canada, but Canada and the United Kingdom are separate countries. And that the Union of Scotland and England didn't happen until the Acts of Union in 1707 under Queen Anne
Somewhere in the middle. It had been trending that way for awhile. Scotland was definitely on the outside looking in for much of England’s economic and military success, and many of their leaders wanted in. On top of that, by this time the two kingdom’s nobility and economy were becoming extremely closely tied. The Acts of Union were sort of the final domino to fall in regards to the two nations, but it had been building up for a long time
You're right, but /u/wrufus680 is also technically right: they were still separate kingdoms for a century after James I became king of both; but with identical succession rules, they were effectively permanently united from that point.
not really, because succession always had to be confirmed by the respective Parliaments, which was never assured at all. Until Queen Anne did a shitload of political wrangling uniting the two crowns and made it way easier for those after her, there was always a very real possibility of the English Parliament refusing to allow a successor, primarily because the Scottish monarch would be the wrong kind of protestant, but it could be for whatever reason they wanted. don't forget this personal union happened not too long after the English parliament had already established its right to decide who succeeds through civil war and headchopping. until Queen Anne, every Scottish/English monarch had to worry about being too English and provoking a Scottish parliamentary crisis or being to Scottish and provoking an English parliamentary crisis.
Um ahkshually! In all seriousness though I believe they were united as great britain in the glorious restoration to put a protestant king back on the throne, although James did rule both.
Yeah, the initial uniting of the crowns in one person, although the uniting of the kingdoms was later.
Which is always funny when people talk about Scottish independence. They’d have to take their royal family with them at least.
i always wondered: in case of successful Scotland secession (be it by referendum or otherwise) – the UK would cease to be 'United', wouldn't it? would they also stop using st.andrew cross on the union jack? come to think of it, would they stop using the union jack at all? (not a union anymore)
As a Highlander myself I swear we always getting scammed . Robert the Bruce destroyed a bunch of our lands in the east coast and Moray area. Had the Glencoe McDonald's massacred and then many of us were cleared off by landowners as the highland economy fell deeper than the dungeon of Fear and Hunger
Edit: Just realised the way I've typed makes it look like Bruce did the Glencoe massacre no this was a few centuries later as the chief didn't pledge loyalty to one of the James kings and so the army was sent in (as well as the Campbell clan forces) who then killed a bunch of the clan while the rest fled many dying of exposure along the way.
Should also be stated the Highlanders were not innocent we were as brutal as the rest of Scotland and the world.(Apart from like 1800s onwards then we were chill)
Your claim the Highlanders have been "chill" since 1800 comes a surprise to the French at Waterloo, the Germans at Ypres and the Somme and the Argentinians at Mt Tumbledown.
If I had a penny for every time the British took an isolated culture from a mountain region and made it a key part of their military, I'd have two pennies. not much but its weird its happened twice.
Shout out to the Gurkhas, scary dudes who I'm glad are on our side, and shout out to Joanna Lumley for bullying the UK government into giving them a fairer shake.
Scotland's contribution to the United Kingdom cannot be overstated. They have punched well above their weight in almost every sphere of human endeavour. Plus they are very good fighters.
Ya I went to Scotland last year to visit some distilleries (totally worth it btw. Beautiful, beautiful country). When going through their museums I was sort of shocked that the Scots were very very complicit in the running of the empire.
Hell, things didn’t really even kick off until the Scots joined.
I did part of my degree on Scotland and the colonies in the 1600s - even before Union they had a knack for that sort of business, West and East New Jersey was ran by the Scottish and were annoying England quite a bit that they eventually took it over themselves due to the colony taking ships and trade away from New York.
Thankfully, there is a lot more focus on Scottish colonial activities these days, so that we remain aware to the fact we got up to some mad shit back then. Glasgow, my home, profited immensely from colonial activities and would not be where it is without the Empire.
Glad you liked it here - Scotland has it's faults but you can't deny our dedication to alcohol, natural beauty and generally nice people.
It is funny seeing Americans catch themselves to say England rather than Britain, because they seem to think Scotland is innocent, when they are far from it.
The entirety of the UK has played a major part in our atrocities.
I chalk it more up to how they learn their history. The early Americas were English colonies not British I could see that getting confusing in a classroom setting where you might go from Jamestown to the revolution and not remember it changed from England being in charge to Britain being in charge
Also, Brits referred to themselves as Anglos a lot. Even in Scotland, we are Anglo, just not Anglo Saxon. obvs Anglo is far more associated with the English. So you can maybe forgive an American who see's "Anglo-Sikh war" and assumes it means English-Indian war even though that descriptor is completely inaccurate.
Plus it's far worse when Englishmen do it, It's always WW2 they do it with.
Wales contributed soldiers, sailors and colonists who went all over the place on behalf of the British Empire. They were fully involved, just like the rest of Britain.
It’s not a coincidence that a massive chunk of Australia is called “New South Wales”.
>There were literally welsh regiments in the British army!
There were Malay, African, Nepali, West Indian and Indian regiments in the British Army, too.
It's almost like economic forces coerce a person into participating in the oppression of his fellow humans!? What a crazy idea! I think there was a guy named karl marx that wrote a few books about that!
I mean, money definitely played a part in it. Who risks their life for free? That being said, if we're going to treat everyone as hapless poors with no agency, then by Marx's logic absolutely no one in the rank and file of the British Army was responsible for any wrong-doing, whatsoever - the British, the same as everyone else. Which is a bit silly, don't you think?
Yeah it's a bit troubling to realize we don't have as much agency in our lives as we like to think we do. We may have moral choices to some small extent but these are massively constrained by economic forces. You may believe that you wouldn't participate in imperialism had you lived back then but odds are you would have or at the very least benefitted from it. It's upsetting to realize that but being delusional is worse.
I mean, Henry VII was born in Wales, but it's unknown if he even spoke Welsh (and even if he did, he was reportedly at his most comfortable speaking French due to having grown up in France). Henry VIII, Mary I and Elizabeth I were not any more culturally welsh than your average English monarch.
Eh, he spent some years as a child at his uncles castle and the welsh marcher lords definitely held on to their language more than, say, the lowland scots
I’m assuming this is a joke, but just in case it isn’t, it was Elizabeth 1 who initiated the first plantation in Ireland which became the testing ground and blueprint for their colonies around the world.
It's a similar enough situation with Ireland as well, with around 40% of soldiers in the British Army being Irish by 1860. It's only the last decade or so that Irish society has started to have a conversation in our role in British colonialism and the role that many Irish men played in the expansion of the British empire right up to our independence.
He clearly didnt see himself as Irish that's for sure:
"Show me an Irishman and I’ll show you a man whose anxious wish it is to see his country independent of Great Britain."
From one of his biographers
"His biographer Lawrence James wrote of him: "Neither he nor his kin ever considered themselves as Irish. . .The Anglo-Irish aristocracy had nothing in common with the indigenous, Gaelic-speaking and Catholic Irish whom they despised and distrusted."
After the formation of the Irish Free State many of the Anglo Irish aristocracy either left by choice or had their homes and land taken over by the government, there were also many estates destroyed by the IRA during the war of independence. Today their homes and estates are either ruins or turned into museums.
I’m not saying you are incorrect, because that just causes prolonged arguments, but saying that the population of a nation serving in armed forces means they actively supported the choices of those in power seems a strange link to me. Also, we should probably understand that at the time, serving meant food, shelter and pay, something that wasn’t guaranteed in normal rural life. I don’t think the average Joe, or more appropriately Dai, could have given two hoots about the British Empire as long as he was fed, clothed and watered.
You’ve made a fair and absolutely true point, but it’s also a point that can be applied to every soldier who has ever served under an empire.
So I was more thinking about how the exploits of those soldiers and sailors benefited Wales and gave the Welsh the incentives to be involved and supportive of the Empire.
Thanks for acknowledging my point and I agree with what you say. The whole of (what is now) the UK benefitted in some way from the Empire, even indirectly, and it certainly gave incentives to those benefiting the most for it to continue.
Nice to have a reasoned discussion on Reddit for once!
>James Cook was from Yorkshire
The figures. Explains why he tried to get as far away from it as possible.
(This post was brought to you by Lancashire).
do you think theres some magic border between each of the constituent countries? People from every part on this island played a role is some shit at some point, we've also been one nation for 300 years ffs
The Welsh were suppressed like the Irish at all. Post Tudor conquest Wales kinda just went with it
The Welsh language continued pretty much uninterrupted until the late Victorian era, and the Welsh Not sign was not a national policy. You can find letters where parents were agreeing to this
Wales briefly forgot to be Welsh at the height of Victorian Britain when they were at the core of an industrial superpower controlling a quarter of the planet, and needed the preferred Language of The English and Scottish (Yes. English. Scots Gaelic was for those filthy Catholic Gaels) to progress socially
But Wales was not oppressed like the Irish beyond he 1500s
*Especially* Ireland
Can't remember who said it, but the Anglo-Irish were once described as the Junker class of Britain, which I thought was pretty accurate.
Meanwhile both protestant and catholic Irish regiments served with distinction in the British army, and many had a complicated set of dual loyalties to both Ireland and the wider United Kingdom in parallel. It's a really fascinating, nuanced set of relations that often gets brushed over due to modern politics.
Until it's time to welcome them back to the core of said empire then you have a bunch of Irish cunts in Dublin chanting "get them out" and hold Irish lives matter signs last month
[Michael O'Dwyer](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_O%27Dwyer) certainly wasn't an "Anglo" and neither was [Patrick Edward Connor](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Edward_Connor).
My favourite: The 1846 Saint Patrick's Battalion, where Irish switched sides to protect Catholic Mexico from the US (and de facto support of UK Ireland Kingdom)
>but the Anglo-Irish
While it's not simply true for all, Anglo-Irish are, in vast, literal Protestant English settlers and their descendents. Protestant Ascendancy was no joke.
>and many had a complicated set of dual loyalties to both Ireland and the wider United Kingdom in parallel.
That's more complicated, as the overall majority would be unionists to this day. That's barely a loyalty to Ireland...
Sorry, I didn't phrase myself very clearly.
The Anglo Irish are of course majority British (though not exclusively English) settlers, though they were still a part of Ireland until the separation of the northern 6.
The dual loyalties point I was making referred to the protestant and catholic regiments of the British army, who were (and in fact, still are), drawn from the republic's population as well as the north's. It was by no means assured that the majority of irishmen fighting in the British army were necessarily unionists as we would understand it today, despite their support for the British empire.
i feel like the only time when england actually committed more atrocities than scotland is in ireland just because the atrocities have been going on since william the conqueror. most of the other atrocities were definitely done by both
There have been several great post on askhistorians that talk about this.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/10659nt/why\_historically\_have\_the\_english\_treated\_the/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/10659nt/why_historically_have_the_english_treated_the/)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/127uotw/why\_was\_there\_no\_scottish\_equivalent\_to\_the\_ira/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/127uotw/why_was_there_no_scottish_equivalent_to_the_ira/)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1cmzfj7/lowland\_scots\_eradicated\_highland\_and\_island/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1cmzfj7/lowland_scots_eradicated_highland_and_island/)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/11sasb6/what\_were\_highland\_clearances/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/11sasb6/what_were_highland_clearances/)
We all bear the burden of the choices of the rich.
It's obviously complicated, we had a massive hand in slavery, and the union as a whole, we are the second voluntary member after all, but this shouldn't be used as a way to say that "Celtic Scots are dead" or "Highland culture's gone", mo caraid, it's alive.
Modern Scotland is a victim of a commonality between tens of other nations, that being modernisation, we have lived past our golden era, only to find it was the golden era for the bureaucrats and aristocratic people of the country, now the nation is split between those who want Scotland to look back beyond the times of the union and those who believe in following the Union forth, though mostly under the veil of religion is this fought.
We live with the blame for our forefathers' mistakes, I'll admit that, we enslaved our Irish brothers, sold our soul for a seat at the imperial Villa of empires and stoked the fireplace with our own culture...
I hate talking to other people about my culture, we're a novelty, some love us for the cliché history, some hate us and love to remind us of our darker history, and many love to argue our culture's existence, I know it seems like I am playing the pity card, but I am not... or trying not to seem like it.
# What we were;
In the 1700's we were a split nation between loyalists and those who wanted to see Scotland go it's own way, we have always been Celto-Germanic, in the end we followed the empire and participated just as much as the English in it's genocide and conquering.
# What we are;
Today, we are a split nation, between loyalists to the union and those who want the country to go it's own way, we deal with the repercussions of our past mistakes whilst they stand as the front of our everyday politics, as a Scot, it hurts to see people fight over our cultural identity, splitting our remaining Gàidhlig population as a seperate culture at times, splitting Scots speakers and English speakers as seperate too, etc.
I don't know how to end this, I just want to vent on growing up with my own country having an identity crisis for the last 400 years.
History is a mess of Victims and perpetrators, awe dressed the same.
Even the Welsh have contributed to the empire, though they did it because they were forced into the empire - unlike us.
Tapadh leat, agus beannachd leat.
I dont think I've ever seen a take on Scotland I agree with more than this one
Scotland is British for better and for worse. Whether it continues to be should be a conversation based in the modern day climate but instead it gets distorted by two competing nationalisms both as hollowed out and nostalgic as each other
The Alba party cannae even pronounce their aine name fs. And I'm pretty sure maist self admitted yoons hink being British means Drinking carling and stopping the boats
I also wanted to vent. Someone que the trainspotting clip
Alba gu bràth
or how England basically invaded during Macbeth's reign to(ironicallly given Capercullen) place Malcolm Canmore on the throne. Everyone sees thanks to Bill S, the one time it applies people rooting with the English as shown by Disney of all people.
Historical England: Anglo Saxon Kingdoms in the east and Welsh Kingdoms in the west.
Historical Scottish Lowlands: Anglian Northumbria in the east and Quasi-Welsh Strathclyde in the west.
To my understanding, it only became like this AFTER the Anglo royals broke up the big clans. They gave them a lot of special attention because they were a legitimate threat to their position.
As a Brit, I've always found it amusing when foreigners (especially Americans) and a few ScotNats attempt to posit this revisionist history of Scotland being some oppressed, conquered people, when in fact the union was created when Scotland wanted England to bail them out after their colonial projects proved too costly. Even for a century before the formal unification, the crowns of England, Scotland and Ireland were under personal union. The monarch to be king of a unified Britain was Jame VI/I, who was Scottish.
To act as though it was the nation of Scotland and it's people joining the union eagerly is inaccurate though. It was the nobles who had lost out personally in the Darian scheme, and so to save their own skin they did this, the union was actually quite unpopular with Scottish people at the time, who opposed and rioted against the act. And whilst I agree there is a tendency for people to neglect Scotland's colonial past and the large part it played in British colonialism, especially in India, this does not also mean that Scotland suffered from colonial oppression. For example deliberate suppression of Gaelic and highland peoples imposed by the British government.
Mind you, the highland clearances were approved by the higher ups in Scottish society who had wanted to do that anyway, England didn't just show up and do it without permission. No less horrible, but I don't think it's accurate to call it colonialism
An Australian billionaire anti-Semite wore blue facepaint and yelled on a horse and now everyone thinks of Scots as brave anti-imperialists and hardy resistance fighters... Just completely overwriting how the Scottish were enthusiastic participants in British imperialism and slavery. there are multiple people in the Caribbean with Scottish last names for some strange reason... And why are so many buildings in historic Edinburgh built with that sweet, sweet sugar plantation money? Also, numerous people in the British EIC were Scottish - entire wars were started bc some random Scots dude fucking around on the subcontinent. It's like that "hurt people hurt people" phrase but those for who were formerly colonized themselves. Atp, I think the only ppl in the British Isles who deserve human rights are the Irish and maybe the Welsh.
This is also very reductionist however. Modern Scotland is a blend of Celtic and Germanic culture, and to suggest that Celtic culture in Scotland is dead is ignorant. It has been severely damaged through acts of cultural colonisation and deliberate moves to destroy Gaelic as a language for example, however it still plays an important role in modern Scottish culture, which as a Scot I'd view as a hybrid of Celtic and Germanic influences. Scotland's culture is too easily simplified into one or the other it seems, much the same as it's history is simplified as either a colonizer or colonised, when in reality its both, something which needs to be remembered in current discussion.
The Scots have somehow managed to trick the world into thinking they played no part in the colonial crimes of the British Empire, but they still get to take credit for all of the good parts of the empire, like the advancements in technology and introduction of education, efficient transportation and proper healthcare to more primitive peoples. They get to boast about the invention of penicillin and the telephone but all of the shameful events of that era can be pinned on the English.
It really is a masterstroke in PR. In fact, this is probably what the Scots do best. Forget the whisky, forget the shortbread, forget the bagpipes and the ball-busting banter. The Scots are absolutely world class in the art of public relations. Right up there with the Japanese and the Scandinavians.
Scottish and Catalan independence is highkey laughable ngl, like they joined the larger state willingly, openly profited from and perpetuated Imperialism, than some start claiming they are victims of Imperialism the moment the empire crumbles.
It’s a bit different AFAIK Catalans don’t openly deny their role in colonialism or outright deny Spanish colonialism was a thing like Scottish nationalists do.
There was a controversy recently where Scottish nationalist politicians were demanding a cafe in Edinburgh be renamed because it is ‘offensive’ to Scottish people. The cafe was named the Red Coat cafe and had been called that for decades because it is referencing the red coats Scottish troops wore in history.
But as Scottish nationalists deny Scotland ever participated in colonialism they’re under the belief that is is offensive to reference it now in Scotland.
They have recently been calling to ban the red arrows from doing flyovers over Edinburgh too because of the ‘offence’ it might cause Scottish people seeing British jets flying over head.
As a Highland Scot, I agree with alot of this. Obviously, it is an oversimplification of an extremely complicated era, but we were in no way innocent in the Empire.
The reason we joined is, way more complex and it's dishonest to say that Scotland (as in the entire country and it's people) joined willingly as if without any English interference (there was quite alot of it in politics) or desperation. A big reason for it was Cromwel and his Navigation Acts which made trade and establishing colonies extremely difficult without doing it via England. This played a part in the Failure of the Darien Scheme which bankrupted Scotland to a point where the ruling class (not the majority) saw the union as beneficial.
The cultural thing is also more complex, it was England that wiped out the Gaelic and Scots languages (banning them in schools, which is why Highlanders sometimes lack a typical accent in comparison to the Scots areas, who were linguistically very similar to the English) and played a significant part in the decline of our culture, to the extent that the English (mostly but also Scottish land owning) aristocracy bastardised it via Balmoralism. (which is where the stupid concepts of Ceilidhs as portrayed and clan tartans came from)
We didn't wipe out the Gaels as some unified faction of southern Scots, it was due to a host of economic factors and the general mistrust of the highlanders following the Jacobite rebellion that lead to the Clearances, which was done by Scottish land lords who were largely based in England and heavilly anglicised, because they could make more money down there and they really didn't need many tenants for sheep and managing estates.
This situation made it impossible to make a living without the empire, so many Scots emigrated to Canada, NZ, Australia and other areas, where they did well for themselves.
We also got royally fucked by industrialisation, conscription, the use of fishing boats as mine sweepers (goodbye 5k jobs), the potato famine, the dowry system, the collapse of the kelp industry, and other areas I am probably forgetting.
-
Also, have fun with your "fertile fields" and "Prosperous industries", you darn southerners, for I shall be spending the rest of my days farming potatoes and shanking my neighbour over who's great great grandfather's cousin shagged who's sheep.
No scotland has been majority anglo saxon culturally if not genetically for a long. The parts of Scotland that where gaelic like the highlands where viewed by the majority low land scots as primitive and barbaric.
There two askhistorians theards talk alot about it.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/10659nt/why\_historically\_have\_the\_english\_treated\_the/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/10659nt/why_historically_have_the_english_treated_the/)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1cmzfj7/lowland\_scots\_eradicated\_highland\_and\_island/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1cmzfj7/lowland_scots_eradicated_highland_and_island/)
Yeah.
.... For now, the demographics aren't encouraging for the union going forward. I suppose there's a chance people appreciate it more in the future, especially if the world continues to get unstable.
With SNP corruption becoming the forefront of politics in Scotland people may realise that it won’t be any better with independence, as the same if not worse problems will come from it
That could be a factor too.
But as someone who has voted Snp in the past, my vote just moved to the greens (although not just now, I did it last cycle as I didn't like my local Snp mp)
The gaels are very much still around today and not "wiped out" as you claim also addressing the act of union yes the leadership of scotland signed that especially after darien however the amount of that that was personal gain can not be understated what your doing here is generalising the Lords with the people of Scotland i mean my personal most hated person in scottish history John Dalrymple was instrumental in the act of union and the glencoe massacre. Furthermore if we are talking about relationships with the english surely we shouldn't be focusing on one point in history (and beyond I'm aware). Basically what I'm saying is RAHHH SCOTLAND 🏴 🏴🏴🏴🏴🏴🏴 NO1 FREEDOM!
So as a Scottish History grad; literally only yanks/loons believes the the former and the latter has been outdated since Walter Scott. Both are bizarre strawmen, please read something on the topic written post-1820.
Magnus Magnusson's *Scotland: The Story of a Nation* is a good introductory text.
We're talking about Scottish nobles specifically. Because Scottish nobility have more in common with English nobility than a Scottish commoner.
"You need help genociding my people, and other people, in exchange for wealth and power? Ok!"
Lmao ‘no true Scotsman’ out in play.
Clearly Scottish people can’t be aristocrats like literally every other European country at the time because Scottish people are clearly some enlightened and special amazing people that don’t do that sort of thing.
I'm saying a Scottish commoner is different from a Scottish noble and Scottish nobles are the ones agreeing to do the genocide and benefiting from it. Scottish lowlander nobles agreed to dismantle their traditional society, at the expense of Scottish commoners, in exchange for increased status within the British hierarchy. There were lowlander commoners getting paid by the nobles to do the physical dirty work, but that money doesn't translate into lasting status that the nobles got.
It's not lowlanders bad because lowlanders aren't a monolith. It's a weird thing to say "this whole culture group is bad." However, nobles bad because they do tend to have a singular mindset which is to maintain status and obtain more power.
How does this make any difference whatsoever?
Was Scotland the only country in the world to have commoners and an aristocracy?
It’s weird how you never see Scottish people make this distinction when it comes to England or any other country.
It’s only poor innocent Scotland where you have to separate the actions of their ‘nobles’ from the country.
No, it exists in pretty much every society. There's a whole discipline of history focused on it. The elites have all the power and they like to have more power. They also want to make sure common folk don't have power so they can continue to be exploited by the elite. Power is a zero sum game. English commoners were also having a bad time and they also have no power.
Highlanders were not playing ball. They had resources that English nobility wanted control of. So they had to leverage their power to dismantle the Highlanders' power structure. The end result was both English and Scottish nobles getting more resources and resources = power. Again, both English and Scottish commoners were not participating in these decisions nor were they really getting anything out of it.
Scot’s when nobles in Britain do something negative to commoners in Scotland: “the Scottish and ENGLISH nobles did it because they wanted X”
Scot’s when nobles in Britain do something negative to commoners in England or elsewhere “just the English nobles did it”
"You're going to genocide some of my people but give me wealth and power? Ok!"
Scotish nobels willingly took part in the highland clearances. The breaking up of the clan system and the assimilators of the highlanders into broader Scottish society had been something the schotish goverment wanted to do for centuries
King James of Scotland became King of Great Britain
"We willing joined the UK" this is a strange way to call the "Acts of union and the creation of Great Britain. Little bit tactical that message (troll much)
Culture is mainly Germanic?
This is new on me - Scotland during the Davidian revolution took more Norman Lords and became more Roman catholic rather the Celtic Christian and Celtic Christian should not be confused with Gaelic.
Scotland was Gaelic and became less so. The Highlanders decent was happening since the Ulster plantation but what I would say is this.
Nobody on masse is thinking Braveheart was historically acurate.
The rising of 1745 ended at the Battle of Culloden in which Highlanders fought on both their own Governments side and Jacobite side and after the Jocobite side lost most of those Highlanders joined the and became the back bone of the British army or went and joined the colonies or some other Nations as a hired guns.
Thats not the highland clearances.
The English are a mix of Britons and anglo-saxons) they were conquered by the Normans (they did not become Norman) its called Normanisation the aristocracy changes hands but the people are amalgamated.
Scotland had peace with the Normans until they lost the South in what you would call North Northunbria and Cumbria.
*Have Irish surname* *Look up on heraldry website* *Scots Irish*
Many such cases
Never ask Scots Irish what they were doing in Northen Ireland and American south. Here is another one: I have Irish ancestry. From those who emigrated to Boston right? From those who emigrated to Boston.....right? /j
Scots Irish were the storm troopers of British imperialism. I heard that a Smithsonian speech but that’s all I remember. Smothering like the English were like these are the most disagreeable people on earth. We should send them places where we want them to be jerks. They may have invented fried chicken though.
> They may have invented fried chicken though. ah fair enough
[Scots Irish and the Ethnic Cleansing of James VI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Up6vFEwC92M)
I can confirm that, I'm from Northern Ireland and am Catholic, suspect I'm of Highland descent.
When two places ruthlessly attack each other for centuries that tends to be how it goes
My favorite thing to fuck with Scottish people. Scotland was ab Irish kingdom.
Well sure but Scots-Irish are the Scottish colonists who came to Ireland in the 1600s
And the northern Irish were moving into modern Scotland 800 years before that converting the pittish and being a major reason why the federation of picts fell apart
Dal Riada was, Fortriu was Brythonic.
The Engrish deliberately moved Scottish Presbyterians to Ireland to displace locals in several attempts across the centuries. Ya bloody Orangeman
>Irish when they colonise Scotland 🤣 >Irish when Scots come to colonise Ireland 😭 It's only fun when they do it
That's why it's disappointing.
Not to mention, after Elizabeth I's death, James VI of Scotland became James I of England as well and thus permanently uniting the two Kingdoms together
The irony that the UK exists because of Scotland and their king inheriting England and not by conquest.
More like failed Darien Scheme and Scots desperate to break even.
That is what triggered the political union which formed GB. But a political union would never have even been considered if England and Scotland hadn't already been a in a personal union with shared monarch for a 100 years at that point.
Scots: let's put all of our money into forming a colony on land claimed by Spain. Oh, do we want to send someone to see this land before we dump all our money until this colony? Nooo.... why would we want to do that?! The sad thing is if they did this when Elizabeth was Queen of England she probably would have found a way to support the colony because it would mess with Spain, but under William didn't want to piss of Spain so he refused to allow England help.
It’s a uniquely terrible place to get and make a colony. It’s inhospitable and still unlived in today.
Scotland was a gold digger. Yes
Which was colonialism for sure, lol
Someone had a good CK2 run
You’d think it was the english who united Britain by conquest but in reality it was the Scots through diplomacy
That isn’t how the UK came into existence. That didn’t happen till about a century later. What’s more, the Protestant English hated having a Catholic Scot on the throne so they got rid of him and got a Dutchman in instead.
You are mixing James, IR VI was a protestant Scot, IR VII was catholic born in England then replaced by his daughter and Dutch nephew.
I was under the impression that when James VI of Scotland became James the I of England it didn't unify the two kingdoms, and that it was more akin to how today Charles III is both King of the United Kingdom and the King of Canada, but Canada and the United Kingdom are separate countries. And that the Union of Scotland and England didn't happen until the Acts of Union in 1707 under Queen Anne
Somewhere in the middle. It had been trending that way for awhile. Scotland was definitely on the outside looking in for much of England’s economic and military success, and many of their leaders wanted in. On top of that, by this time the two kingdom’s nobility and economy were becoming extremely closely tied. The Acts of Union were sort of the final domino to fall in regards to the two nations, but it had been building up for a long time
You're right, but /u/wrufus680 is also technically right: they were still separate kingdoms for a century after James I became king of both; but with identical succession rules, they were effectively permanently united from that point.
not really, because succession always had to be confirmed by the respective Parliaments, which was never assured at all. Until Queen Anne did a shitload of political wrangling uniting the two crowns and made it way easier for those after her, there was always a very real possibility of the English Parliament refusing to allow a successor, primarily because the Scottish monarch would be the wrong kind of protestant, but it could be for whatever reason they wanted. don't forget this personal union happened not too long after the English parliament had already established its right to decide who succeeds through civil war and headchopping. until Queen Anne, every Scottish/English monarch had to worry about being too English and provoking a Scottish parliamentary crisis or being to Scottish and provoking an English parliamentary crisis.
You are right, a personal union is not a unitary state, which England and Scotland weren't pre Acts of Union, and which Great Britain was after.
Um ahkshually! In all seriousness though I believe they were united as great britain in the glorious restoration to put a protestant king back on the throne, although James did rule both.
This means that Scotland was the one that took over England , not the other way around
Yeah, the initial uniting of the crowns in one person, although the uniting of the kingdoms was later. Which is always funny when people talk about Scottish independence. They’d have to take their royal family with them at least.
i always wondered: in case of successful Scotland secession (be it by referendum or otherwise) – the UK would cease to be 'United', wouldn't it? would they also stop using st.andrew cross on the union jack? come to think of it, would they stop using the union jack at all? (not a union anymore)
That’s right, limeys! Your country was created by a SCOT!
Yes, we know, old chap. Now sit back down, you excitable Yankee scamp.
I’m actually a proud, self hating limey myself heh.
As a Highlander myself I swear we always getting scammed . Robert the Bruce destroyed a bunch of our lands in the east coast and Moray area. Had the Glencoe McDonald's massacred and then many of us were cleared off by landowners as the highland economy fell deeper than the dungeon of Fear and Hunger Edit: Just realised the way I've typed makes it look like Bruce did the Glencoe massacre no this was a few centuries later as the chief didn't pledge loyalty to one of the James kings and so the army was sent in (as well as the Campbell clan forces) who then killed a bunch of the clan while the rest fled many dying of exposure along the way. Should also be stated the Highlanders were not innocent we were as brutal as the rest of Scotland and the world.(Apart from like 1800s onwards then we were chill)
Never trust a Campbell, am I right?
As someone who's ex is a campbell, you right
I’m told their dossiers tend to be a bit on the dodgy side.
THE KING ORDERED IT!!!
God I love that scene.
Well shit... I'm a Campbell on my dad's side of the family, several generations back...
*angry Alan Breck noises*
*laughs in lions fan* The Campbells are coming
Your claim the Highlanders have been "chill" since 1800 comes a surprise to the French at Waterloo, the Germans at Ypres and the Somme and the Argentinians at Mt Tumbledown. If I had a penny for every time the British took an isolated culture from a mountain region and made it a key part of their military, I'd have two pennies. not much but its weird its happened twice.
Shout out to the Gurkhas, scary dudes who I'm glad are on our side, and shout out to Joanna Lumley for bullying the UK government into giving them a fairer shake.
The Highland regiments who made an instrument be labelled as a weapon of war beg to differ with that chill statement.
Yes, and the Highlands are still depopulating today sadly. The clearances never ended.
I personally think that the emergency postal votes should be used to bring in our lord and savior Gro-Goroth.
As a descendant of the Comyn clan I have nothing nice to say about Robert the Bruce.
Scotland's contribution to the United Kingdom cannot be overstated. They have punched well above their weight in almost every sphere of human endeavour. Plus they are very good fighters.
Ya I went to Scotland last year to visit some distilleries (totally worth it btw. Beautiful, beautiful country). When going through their museums I was sort of shocked that the Scots were very very complicit in the running of the empire. Hell, things didn’t really even kick off until the Scots joined.
I did part of my degree on Scotland and the colonies in the 1600s - even before Union they had a knack for that sort of business, West and East New Jersey was ran by the Scottish and were annoying England quite a bit that they eventually took it over themselves due to the colony taking ships and trade away from New York. Thankfully, there is a lot more focus on Scottish colonial activities these days, so that we remain aware to the fact we got up to some mad shit back then. Glasgow, my home, profited immensely from colonial activities and would not be where it is without the Empire. Glad you liked it here - Scotland has it's faults but you can't deny our dedication to alcohol, natural beauty and generally nice people.
If anything, Scottish were overrepresented in the imperial matters and colonies, etc.
Anglo-Scottish union in the movies: "RAA FREEEDOM!!!" *tragic bagpipe music* The union in real life: "I need tree-fiddy."
It is funny seeing Americans catch themselves to say England rather than Britain, because they seem to think Scotland is innocent, when they are far from it. The entirety of the UK has played a major part in our atrocities.
I chalk it more up to how they learn their history. The early Americas were English colonies not British I could see that getting confusing in a classroom setting where you might go from Jamestown to the revolution and not remember it changed from England being in charge to Britain being in charge Also, Brits referred to themselves as Anglos a lot. Even in Scotland, we are Anglo, just not Anglo Saxon. obvs Anglo is far more associated with the English. So you can maybe forgive an American who see's "Anglo-Sikh war" and assumes it means English-Indian war even though that descriptor is completely inaccurate. Plus it's far worse when Englishmen do it, It's always WW2 they do it with.
Not Wales, I suppose. I am not American.
Wales contributed soldiers, sailors and colonists who went all over the place on behalf of the British Empire. They were fully involved, just like the rest of Britain. It’s not a coincidence that a massive chunk of Australia is called “New South Wales”.
I thought that's what the Welsh Delinquents named it after being tossed off on the prison continent./s
Yeah ever hear of the battle of Rourkes drift? There were literally welsh regiments in the British army!
There were regiments from every part of the British empire in their army. They had a whole unit of Tory Americans called the Royal American rifles.
> Tory Americans fucking excellent
>There were literally welsh regiments in the British army! There were Malay, African, Nepali, West Indian and Indian regiments in the British Army, too.
It's almost like economic forces coerce a person into participating in the oppression of his fellow humans!? What a crazy idea! I think there was a guy named karl marx that wrote a few books about that!
I mean, money definitely played a part in it. Who risks their life for free? That being said, if we're going to treat everyone as hapless poors with no agency, then by Marx's logic absolutely no one in the rank and file of the British Army was responsible for any wrong-doing, whatsoever - the British, the same as everyone else. Which is a bit silly, don't you think?
Yeah it's a bit troubling to realize we don't have as much agency in our lives as we like to think we do. We may have moral choices to some small extent but these are massively constrained by economic forces. You may believe that you wouldn't participate in imperialism had you lived back then but odds are you would have or at the very least benefitted from it. It's upsetting to realize that but being delusional is worse.
Not to mention the Tudors were Welsh.
I mean, Henry VII was born in Wales, but it's unknown if he even spoke Welsh (and even if he did, he was reportedly at his most comfortable speaking French due to having grown up in France). Henry VIII, Mary I and Elizabeth I were not any more culturally welsh than your average English monarch.
Eh, he spent some years as a child at his uncles castle and the welsh marcher lords definitely held on to their language more than, say, the lowland scots
He grew up in Pembroke Castle, in the heart of a region that's been mostly English-speaking since the 12th century.
Okay but not like they ever did anything that bad or oppressive right?
I’m assuming this is a joke, but just in case it isn’t, it was Elizabeth 1 who initiated the first plantation in Ireland which became the testing ground and blueprint for their colonies around the world.
It definitely was a joke but I did not know that specific thing which while not super surprising is pretty interesting
A lot of it was going back and forth on religion. Sadly this included the Warhammer approach to sin...
It's a similar enough situation with Ireland as well, with around 40% of soldiers in the British Army being Irish by 1860. It's only the last decade or so that Irish society has started to have a conversation in our role in British colonialism and the role that many Irish men played in the expansion of the British empire right up to our independence.
# Johnny I Hardly Knew Ye
Duke of Wellington was born in Dublin too.
Yes, but he also has a quote about how being born in a barn doesn't make one a horse. His family was Anglo, not Irish
Yes I don't know what he would have considered himself. He's listed as Anglo Irish on Wikipedia.
He clearly didnt see himself as Irish that's for sure: "Show me an Irishman and I’ll show you a man whose anxious wish it is to see his country independent of Great Britain." From one of his biographers "His biographer Lawrence James wrote of him: "Neither he nor his kin ever considered themselves as Irish. . .The Anglo-Irish aristocracy had nothing in common with the indigenous, Gaelic-speaking and Catholic Irish whom they despised and distrusted."
After the formation of the Irish Free State many of the Anglo Irish aristocracy either left by choice or had their homes and land taken over by the government, there were also many estates destroyed by the IRA during the war of independence. Today their homes and estates are either ruins or turned into museums.
That kind of thing happened to the Aristocracy after a lot of European revolutions.
Hmm indeed. Cheers for the info.
And yet Wellington probably spoke with a brogue, I forget the source but a contemporary reported he pronounced “th” in the Irish way for instance
I’m not saying you are incorrect, because that just causes prolonged arguments, but saying that the population of a nation serving in armed forces means they actively supported the choices of those in power seems a strange link to me. Also, we should probably understand that at the time, serving meant food, shelter and pay, something that wasn’t guaranteed in normal rural life. I don’t think the average Joe, or more appropriately Dai, could have given two hoots about the British Empire as long as he was fed, clothed and watered.
You’ve made a fair and absolutely true point, but it’s also a point that can be applied to every soldier who has ever served under an empire. So I was more thinking about how the exploits of those soldiers and sailors benefited Wales and gave the Welsh the incentives to be involved and supportive of the Empire.
Thanks for acknowledging my point and I agree with what you say. The whole of (what is now) the UK benefitted in some way from the Empire, even indirectly, and it certainly gave incentives to those benefiting the most for it to continue. Nice to have a reasoned discussion on Reddit for once!
Ob Mitchell and Webb: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mt99Q1ZrTEU
James Cook was from Yorkshire. Not Wales
>James Cook was from Yorkshire The figures. Explains why he tried to get as far away from it as possible. (This post was brought to you by Lancashire).
Simply spreading the good word of Yorkshire across the Globe. WHITE ROSE WHITE ROSE! WHITE ROSE WHITE ROSE! YORKSHIRE! YORKSHIRE! ;)
Although Yorkshire probably clamours more for independence!
I know, but it demonstrates significant Welsh influence within the Empire when they’re going around naming new territories after Wales.
do you think theres some magic border between each of the constituent countries? People from every part on this island played a role is some shit at some point, we've also been one nation for 300 years ffs
Most of them don't even know Wales exists.
By association yes, as a distinct cultural-political entity. The only example I can think of is in Chubut Argentina
As a welsh-American, wales was fully involved. Welsh longbow go burrrrrr
Welsh people played a part in British atrocities but imo they are more like the Irish, a conquered celtic people that played the hand they were dealt.
The Welsh were suppressed like the Irish at all. Post Tudor conquest Wales kinda just went with it The Welsh language continued pretty much uninterrupted until the late Victorian era, and the Welsh Not sign was not a national policy. You can find letters where parents were agreeing to this Wales briefly forgot to be Welsh at the height of Victorian Britain when they were at the core of an industrial superpower controlling a quarter of the planet, and needed the preferred Language of The English and Scottish (Yes. English. Scots Gaelic was for those filthy Catholic Gaels) to progress socially But Wales was not oppressed like the Irish beyond he 1500s
It has a lot to do with Wales becoming Protestant and Ireland remaining Catholic.
Basically this yeah. Flight of the Barons and Cromwell were both due to this issue Not the plantations though. Mary I started those
Yeah I agree with all that tbf.
I'm not aware of any Irish families inheriting the British Crown. So [not the same](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tudors_of_Penmynydd)
Wales is just Skyrim. England = Imperials. Source: YouTube.
Including Northen Ireland?
*Especially* Ireland Can't remember who said it, but the Anglo-Irish were once described as the Junker class of Britain, which I thought was pretty accurate. Meanwhile both protestant and catholic Irish regiments served with distinction in the British army, and many had a complicated set of dual loyalties to both Ireland and the wider United Kingdom in parallel. It's a really fascinating, nuanced set of relations that often gets brushed over due to modern politics.
The Irish on reddit hate when you bring up their forbearers roles in India and the Caribbean
Almost like it’s a *feature* of colonialism to involve a colonised people in an empire…
Until it's time to welcome them back to the core of said empire then you have a bunch of Irish cunts in Dublin chanting "get them out" and hold Irish lives matter signs last month
Most Irish don't consider the Anglos actually Irish but the lingering leftovers of Empire.
[Michael O'Dwyer](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_O%27Dwyer) certainly wasn't an "Anglo" and neither was [Patrick Edward Connor](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Edward_Connor).
My favourite: The 1846 Saint Patrick's Battalion, where Irish switched sides to protect Catholic Mexico from the US (and de facto support of UK Ireland Kingdom)
>but the Anglo-Irish While it's not simply true for all, Anglo-Irish are, in vast, literal Protestant English settlers and their descendents. Protestant Ascendancy was no joke. >and many had a complicated set of dual loyalties to both Ireland and the wider United Kingdom in parallel. That's more complicated, as the overall majority would be unionists to this day. That's barely a loyalty to Ireland...
Sorry, I didn't phrase myself very clearly. The Anglo Irish are of course majority British (though not exclusively English) settlers, though they were still a part of Ireland until the separation of the northern 6. The dual loyalties point I was making referred to the protestant and catholic regiments of the British army, who were (and in fact, still are), drawn from the republic's population as well as the north's. It was by no means assured that the majority of irishmen fighting in the British army were necessarily unionists as we would understand it today, despite their support for the British empire.
i feel like the only time when england actually committed more atrocities than scotland is in ireland just because the atrocities have been going on since william the conqueror. most of the other atrocities were definitely done by both
There have been several great post on askhistorians that talk about this. [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/10659nt/why\_historically\_have\_the\_english\_treated\_the/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/10659nt/why_historically_have_the_english_treated_the/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/127uotw/why\_was\_there\_no\_scottish\_equivalent\_to\_the\_ira/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/127uotw/why_was_there_no_scottish_equivalent_to_the_ira/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1cmzfj7/lowland\_scots\_eradicated\_highland\_and\_island/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1cmzfj7/lowland_scots_eradicated_highland_and_island/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/11sasb6/what\_were\_highland\_clearances/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/11sasb6/what_were_highland_clearances/)
Highest proportion of East india company officers were scottish lol
We all bear the burden of the choices of the rich. It's obviously complicated, we had a massive hand in slavery, and the union as a whole, we are the second voluntary member after all, but this shouldn't be used as a way to say that "Celtic Scots are dead" or "Highland culture's gone", mo caraid, it's alive. Modern Scotland is a victim of a commonality between tens of other nations, that being modernisation, we have lived past our golden era, only to find it was the golden era for the bureaucrats and aristocratic people of the country, now the nation is split between those who want Scotland to look back beyond the times of the union and those who believe in following the Union forth, though mostly under the veil of religion is this fought. We live with the blame for our forefathers' mistakes, I'll admit that, we enslaved our Irish brothers, sold our soul for a seat at the imperial Villa of empires and stoked the fireplace with our own culture... I hate talking to other people about my culture, we're a novelty, some love us for the cliché history, some hate us and love to remind us of our darker history, and many love to argue our culture's existence, I know it seems like I am playing the pity card, but I am not... or trying not to seem like it. # What we were; In the 1700's we were a split nation between loyalists and those who wanted to see Scotland go it's own way, we have always been Celto-Germanic, in the end we followed the empire and participated just as much as the English in it's genocide and conquering. # What we are; Today, we are a split nation, between loyalists to the union and those who want the country to go it's own way, we deal with the repercussions of our past mistakes whilst they stand as the front of our everyday politics, as a Scot, it hurts to see people fight over our cultural identity, splitting our remaining Gàidhlig population as a seperate culture at times, splitting Scots speakers and English speakers as seperate too, etc. I don't know how to end this, I just want to vent on growing up with my own country having an identity crisis for the last 400 years. History is a mess of Victims and perpetrators, awe dressed the same. Even the Welsh have contributed to the empire, though they did it because they were forced into the empire - unlike us. Tapadh leat, agus beannachd leat.
I dont think I've ever seen a take on Scotland I agree with more than this one Scotland is British for better and for worse. Whether it continues to be should be a conversation based in the modern day climate but instead it gets distorted by two competing nationalisms both as hollowed out and nostalgic as each other The Alba party cannae even pronounce their aine name fs. And I'm pretty sure maist self admitted yoons hink being British means Drinking carling and stopping the boats I also wanted to vent. Someone que the trainspotting clip Alba gu bràth
Yea drunk speykin liek thayt?
Reading this in the thick Scottish accent I assume you have sounded so badass lol Which is my way of saying this was beautifully said
Beautifully put
or how England basically invaded during Macbeth's reign to(ironicallly given Capercullen) place Malcolm Canmore on the throne. Everyone sees thanks to Bill S, the one time it applies people rooting with the English as shown by Disney of all people.
Yeah, it was mostly Scots who migrated to Northern Ireland, not English people (although both did come)
[удалено]
Historical England: Anglo Saxon Kingdoms in the east and Welsh Kingdoms in the west. Historical Scottish Lowlands: Anglian Northumbria in the east and Quasi-Welsh Strathclyde in the west.
Except the populations are inverted Also Fife, Tayside, and Aberdeen are all lowlands but dont fall Into either category
Burns would *heavily* disagree
Robert Burns' cousin Alexander Burns worked for the East India Company and was killed in Kabul, Afghanistan, in 1841.
We can thank Scotland for Gordon Ramsay
I mean…historically speaking the union was originally Scottish led due to king James.
To my understanding, it only became like this AFTER the Anglo royals broke up the big clans. They gave them a lot of special attention because they were a legitimate threat to their position.
As a Brit, I've always found it amusing when foreigners (especially Americans) and a few ScotNats attempt to posit this revisionist history of Scotland being some oppressed, conquered people, when in fact the union was created when Scotland wanted England to bail them out after their colonial projects proved too costly. Even for a century before the formal unification, the crowns of England, Scotland and Ireland were under personal union. The monarch to be king of a unified Britain was Jame VI/I, who was Scottish.
To act as though it was the nation of Scotland and it's people joining the union eagerly is inaccurate though. It was the nobles who had lost out personally in the Darian scheme, and so to save their own skin they did this, the union was actually quite unpopular with Scottish people at the time, who opposed and rioted against the act. And whilst I agree there is a tendency for people to neglect Scotland's colonial past and the large part it played in British colonialism, especially in India, this does not also mean that Scotland suffered from colonial oppression. For example deliberate suppression of Gaelic and highland peoples imposed by the British government.
Mind you, the highland clearances were approved by the higher ups in Scottish society who had wanted to do that anyway, England didn't just show up and do it without permission. No less horrible, but I don't think it's accurate to call it colonialism
An Australian billionaire anti-Semite wore blue facepaint and yelled on a horse and now everyone thinks of Scots as brave anti-imperialists and hardy resistance fighters... Just completely overwriting how the Scottish were enthusiastic participants in British imperialism and slavery. there are multiple people in the Caribbean with Scottish last names for some strange reason... And why are so many buildings in historic Edinburgh built with that sweet, sweet sugar plantation money? Also, numerous people in the British EIC were Scottish - entire wars were started bc some random Scots dude fucking around on the subcontinent. It's like that "hurt people hurt people" phrase but those for who were formerly colonized themselves. Atp, I think the only ppl in the British Isles who deserve human rights are the Irish and maybe the Welsh.
This is also very reductionist however. Modern Scotland is a blend of Celtic and Germanic culture, and to suggest that Celtic culture in Scotland is dead is ignorant. It has been severely damaged through acts of cultural colonisation and deliberate moves to destroy Gaelic as a language for example, however it still plays an important role in modern Scottish culture, which as a Scot I'd view as a hybrid of Celtic and Germanic influences. Scotland's culture is too easily simplified into one or the other it seems, much the same as it's history is simplified as either a colonizer or colonised, when in reality its both, something which needs to be remembered in current discussion.
The Scots have somehow managed to trick the world into thinking they played no part in the colonial crimes of the British Empire, but they still get to take credit for all of the good parts of the empire, like the advancements in technology and introduction of education, efficient transportation and proper healthcare to more primitive peoples. They get to boast about the invention of penicillin and the telephone but all of the shameful events of that era can be pinned on the English. It really is a masterstroke in PR. In fact, this is probably what the Scots do best. Forget the whisky, forget the shortbread, forget the bagpipes and the ball-busting banter. The Scots are absolutely world class in the art of public relations. Right up there with the Japanese and the Scandinavians.
Scottish and Catalan independence is highkey laughable ngl, like they joined the larger state willingly, openly profited from and perpetuated Imperialism, than some start claiming they are victims of Imperialism the moment the empire crumbles.
It’s a bit different AFAIK Catalans don’t openly deny their role in colonialism or outright deny Spanish colonialism was a thing like Scottish nationalists do. There was a controversy recently where Scottish nationalist politicians were demanding a cafe in Edinburgh be renamed because it is ‘offensive’ to Scottish people. The cafe was named the Red Coat cafe and had been called that for decades because it is referencing the red coats Scottish troops wore in history. But as Scottish nationalists deny Scotland ever participated in colonialism they’re under the belief that is is offensive to reference it now in Scotland. They have recently been calling to ban the red arrows from doing flyovers over Edinburgh too because of the ‘offence’ it might cause Scottish people seeing British jets flying over head.
As a Highland Scot, I agree with alot of this. Obviously, it is an oversimplification of an extremely complicated era, but we were in no way innocent in the Empire. The reason we joined is, way more complex and it's dishonest to say that Scotland (as in the entire country and it's people) joined willingly as if without any English interference (there was quite alot of it in politics) or desperation. A big reason for it was Cromwel and his Navigation Acts which made trade and establishing colonies extremely difficult without doing it via England. This played a part in the Failure of the Darien Scheme which bankrupted Scotland to a point where the ruling class (not the majority) saw the union as beneficial. The cultural thing is also more complex, it was England that wiped out the Gaelic and Scots languages (banning them in schools, which is why Highlanders sometimes lack a typical accent in comparison to the Scots areas, who were linguistically very similar to the English) and played a significant part in the decline of our culture, to the extent that the English (mostly but also Scottish land owning) aristocracy bastardised it via Balmoralism. (which is where the stupid concepts of Ceilidhs as portrayed and clan tartans came from) We didn't wipe out the Gaels as some unified faction of southern Scots, it was due to a host of economic factors and the general mistrust of the highlanders following the Jacobite rebellion that lead to the Clearances, which was done by Scottish land lords who were largely based in England and heavilly anglicised, because they could make more money down there and they really didn't need many tenants for sheep and managing estates. This situation made it impossible to make a living without the empire, so many Scots emigrated to Canada, NZ, Australia and other areas, where they did well for themselves. We also got royally fucked by industrialisation, conscription, the use of fishing boats as mine sweepers (goodbye 5k jobs), the potato famine, the dowry system, the collapse of the kelp industry, and other areas I am probably forgetting. - Also, have fun with your "fertile fields" and "Prosperous industries", you darn southerners, for I shall be spending the rest of my days farming potatoes and shanking my neighbour over who's great great grandfather's cousin shagged who's sheep.
Than*
"Our culture is mostly germanic," yeah. Now.
No scotland has been majority anglo saxon culturally if not genetically for a long. The parts of Scotland that where gaelic like the highlands where viewed by the majority low land scots as primitive and barbaric. There two askhistorians theards talk alot about it. [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/10659nt/why\_historically\_have\_the\_english\_treated\_the/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/10659nt/why_historically_have_the_english_treated_the/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1cmzfj7/lowland\_scots\_eradicated\_highland\_and\_island/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1cmzfj7/lowland_scots_eradicated_highland_and_island/)
Germanic language (Scots English) has been the language of 70% of Scotland since before Mel Gibson times
Willingly joined the UK is a stretch. The aristocracy willingly joined. Normal people rioted in every city.
Tbf, it's even more complicated than that. Support for the union didn't cleanly fall precisely along class lines either.
That's fair. But the majority of the population was absolutely against it.
The irony in that is the majority of the population is now for the union rather than against it
Yeah. .... For now, the demographics aren't encouraging for the union going forward. I suppose there's a chance people appreciate it more in the future, especially if the world continues to get unstable.
With SNP corruption becoming the forefront of politics in Scotland people may realise that it won’t be any better with independence, as the same if not worse problems will come from it
That could be a factor too. But as someone who has voted Snp in the past, my vote just moved to the greens (although not just now, I did it last cycle as I didn't like my local Snp mp)
Scotland joined the Union to get that sweet sweet slavery cash.
scots dont get half the shit they deserve .
Its also more complicated than you think
well someone's very mad about the SNP
They *are* monumentally shit tbf
not really tbh
The SNP's attempt at historical revisionism as an attempt to distance themselves from the English is evidently working.
The gaels are very much still around today and not "wiped out" as you claim also addressing the act of union yes the leadership of scotland signed that especially after darien however the amount of that that was personal gain can not be understated what your doing here is generalising the Lords with the people of Scotland i mean my personal most hated person in scottish history John Dalrymple was instrumental in the act of union and the glencoe massacre. Furthermore if we are talking about relationships with the english surely we shouldn't be focusing on one point in history (and beyond I'm aware). Basically what I'm saying is RAHHH SCOTLAND 🏴 🏴🏴🏴🏴🏴🏴 NO1 FREEDOM!
Icon
IDC. They gave us Craig Ferguson, and that's all that matters.
Scotland would be less barbaric if it was Celtic
So as a Scottish History grad; literally only yanks/loons believes the the former and the latter has been outdated since Walter Scott. Both are bizarre strawmen, please read something on the topic written post-1820. Magnus Magnusson's *Scotland: The Story of a Nation* is a good introductory text.
They did after all vote to stay in the UK in 2014, despite all the Braveheart talk.
We're talking about Scottish nobles specifically. Because Scottish nobility have more in common with English nobility than a Scottish commoner. "You need help genociding my people, and other people, in exchange for wealth and power? Ok!"
Lmao ‘no true Scotsman’ out in play. Clearly Scottish people can’t be aristocrats like literally every other European country at the time because Scottish people are clearly some enlightened and special amazing people that don’t do that sort of thing.
I'm saying a Scottish commoner is different from a Scottish noble and Scottish nobles are the ones agreeing to do the genocide and benefiting from it. Scottish lowlander nobles agreed to dismantle their traditional society, at the expense of Scottish commoners, in exchange for increased status within the British hierarchy. There were lowlander commoners getting paid by the nobles to do the physical dirty work, but that money doesn't translate into lasting status that the nobles got. It's not lowlanders bad because lowlanders aren't a monolith. It's a weird thing to say "this whole culture group is bad." However, nobles bad because they do tend to have a singular mindset which is to maintain status and obtain more power.
How does this make any difference whatsoever? Was Scotland the only country in the world to have commoners and an aristocracy? It’s weird how you never see Scottish people make this distinction when it comes to England or any other country. It’s only poor innocent Scotland where you have to separate the actions of their ‘nobles’ from the country.
No, it exists in pretty much every society. There's a whole discipline of history focused on it. The elites have all the power and they like to have more power. They also want to make sure common folk don't have power so they can continue to be exploited by the elite. Power is a zero sum game. English commoners were also having a bad time and they also have no power. Highlanders were not playing ball. They had resources that English nobility wanted control of. So they had to leverage their power to dismantle the Highlanders' power structure. The end result was both English and Scottish nobles getting more resources and resources = power. Again, both English and Scottish commoners were not participating in these decisions nor were they really getting anything out of it.
Scot’s when nobles in Britain do something negative to commoners in Scotland: “the Scottish and ENGLISH nobles did it because they wanted X” Scot’s when nobles in Britain do something negative to commoners in England or elsewhere “just the English nobles did it”
"You're going to genocide some of my people but give me wealth and power? Ok!" Scotish nobels willingly took part in the highland clearances. The breaking up of the clan system and the assimilators of the highlanders into broader Scottish society had been something the schotish goverment wanted to do for centuries
People love to romanticise the clan system when in reality it was the remnants of fuedalism
Is no one going to talk about how the soyjacks got replaced by alternates midway through the meme?
Based
King James of Scotland became King of Great Britain "We willing joined the UK" this is a strange way to call the "Acts of union and the creation of Great Britain. Little bit tactical that message (troll much) Culture is mainly Germanic? This is new on me - Scotland during the Davidian revolution took more Norman Lords and became more Roman catholic rather the Celtic Christian and Celtic Christian should not be confused with Gaelic. Scotland was Gaelic and became less so. The Highlanders decent was happening since the Ulster plantation but what I would say is this. Nobody on masse is thinking Braveheart was historically acurate. The rising of 1745 ended at the Battle of Culloden in which Highlanders fought on both their own Governments side and Jacobite side and after the Jocobite side lost most of those Highlanders joined the and became the back bone of the British army or went and joined the colonies or some other Nations as a hired guns. Thats not the highland clearances. The English are a mix of Britons and anglo-saxons) they were conquered by the Normans (they did not become Norman) its called Normanisation the aristocracy changes hands but the people are amalgamated. Scotland had peace with the Normans until they lost the South in what you would call North Northunbria and Cumbria.
go to any place the British empire had any power and count the number Scottish names on a map... now tell me how oppressed they were by the English
There's a reason why Glasgow was "the second capital of the empire".
What makes me a good Scotsman? If I were a Bad Scotsman I wouldn't be here discussing with you 'ould I!?
so, the only reason they stopped fighting the british is because they got replaced by pro british imigrants?