Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by naivesincerity)
    How do you mean "how English we've become"-in what ways?
    All Scots speak English and 99% of them do so as their first language. Culturally there is next to no difference. Beyond the illusion/delusion that we are different - which does not in itself make us different - there is next to nothing which could qualify the 'Scots' as a different people. The Gaels certainly arent English and 400 years ago the lowland Scots, while an anglo-saxon people, were also sufficiently distinct to be seperate but now? No.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Question - would an independent Scotland remain within the Commonwealth and have Queen Elizabeth II as Monarch and Queen of Scotland (given the 1707 merging of both crowns). Surely both would have to be the minmum case given that Scotland has such a remarkable history with the rest of the UK. People in the Republic of Ireland still hold strong affiliation with the UK, even in the UK you hear about significant events in ROI, such as the 77m lotto winner (would anyone care if she was french?), the smoking ban etc etc It proves that the countries of the present UK and the old UK will always have special relationships - how far a country like Scotland (whos people seem reluctant to be independent and closely related to England and Wales (who arguably are more distinct)) would actually be independent is to be argued.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Woodsy)
    Question - would an independent Scotland remain within the Commonwealth and have Queen Elizabeth II as Monarch and Queen of Scotland (given the 1707 merging of both crowns).
    If Scotland chose to do so then yes. Ideally should the union be broken (god forbid) then we would remain in the Commonwealth.
    Surely both would have to be the minmum case given that Scotland has such a remarkable history with the rest of the UK. People in the Republic of Ireland still hold strong affiliation with the UK, even in the UK you hear about significant events in ROI, such as the 77m lotto winner (would anyone care if she was french?), the smoking ban etc etc It proves that the countries of the present UK and the old UK will always have special relationships - how far a country like Scotland (whos people seem reluctant to be independent and closely related to England and Wales (who arguably are more distinct)) would actually be independent is to be argued.
    I think it would be essential that close links be maintained in the scenario of independance and its a great shame that the ROI did not remain as part of the Commonwealth. As you say Wales is more distinct than Scotland and it is ironic that seperatist feeling seems more common in thoroughly Anglo-Saxon Scotland than it is in the still significantly Celtic Wales but i think historical independance etc doubtless has a greater part to play in the way the peoples of the UK view and relate to each other than the more tangible difference of language/culture/race.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Woodsy)
    Question - would an independent Scotland remain within the Commonwealth and have Queen Elizabeth II as Monarch and Queen of Scotland (given the 1707 merging of both crowns). Surely both would have to be the minmum case given that Scotland has such a remarkable history with the rest of the UK. People in the Republic of Ireland still hold strong affiliation with the UK, even in the UK you hear about significant events in ROI, such as the 77m lotto winner (would anyone care if she was french?), the smoking ban etc etc It proves that the countries of the present UK and the old UK will always have special relationships - how far a country like Scotland (whos people seem reluctant to be independent and closely related to England and Wales (who arguably are more distinct)) would actually be independent is to be argued.
    I heard the Scottish Socialists want an independent republic.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zooropa)
    I heard the Scottish Socialists want an independent republic.
    Yes but theyve got the political awareness and maturity of your average adolescant going through his commie phase.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    how far a country like Scotland (whos people seem reluctant to be independent and closely related to England and Wales (who arguably are more distinct)) would actually be independent is to be argued.
    What does that mean?

    The SNP want an independent Scotland to join the EU. So in that sense, they'd have to cede some sovereignty.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    Yes but theyve got the political awareness and maturity of your average adolescant going through his commie phase.
    You give them too much credit.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Surely it's just the same as the EU loss-of-culture question. People can keep being just as Scottish as they want without being independent. Similarly, the different European cultures can be preserved perfectly well even in an EU superstate. Look at Germany, for example - huge cultural difference between the South and the North, but the country works. This is a concept that ETA and their ilk appear not to be able to grasp.

    Now that the English have grown out of the idea that they could make the Scots drink tea and play cricket by force of arms, there's no reason for the status quo to change, short of rampant regional-nationalism which is based on ideas almost as old, and just as irrelevant today, as the Cromwellian basis of the Troubles. One might as well grant independence to Yorkshire.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zooropa)
    I heard the Scottish Socialists want an independent republic.
    I heard the Scottish Socialists got no votes.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    But I thought this ended ages ago with King James. He was king of scotland and became king of england as well - a peaceful union - what's the problem with it? Why need complete independance? And with culture, it goes both ways. Scots have influenced English culture and vice versa. (golf, tartan, presbyterian church, the telephone, penicillin, etc)

    Though I know little about scottish history, so i may be (totally) wrong.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I think that it is only fair that the current political measure put in place in scotland are put in place in the rest of the UK as well. Currently we have a minority of UK citizens who have much more political representation and an undue influence in legislation that doesn't affect them. I agree with calls of reform of the parliament and greater attempts to preserve culture.

    I'm from the North West of England and we have a unique culture and political outlook too, it's time all the UK's regions were appreciated and empowered to the same extent.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SolInvincitus)
    In addition, how do you feel about past events such as the revolt by William Wallace or the Jacobite rebellion?
    Both were products of their time. In my mind, William Wallace was not so much fighting for national freedom (no one really does) as individual freedom. When a government oppresses, thats when revolts start. The fact it was an English-loyal government in Scotland mattered little in those times. It was entirely justified and we would be in a very unpleasant position had Scotland been conquered.

    The Jacobites were foolish. I don't believe in the divine right of Kings and I believe that if Parliament wishes to remove the monarch in extraordinary circumstances it should have that right. Since this is a thread about Scotland, I should also point out that the Jacobite risings weren't really a Scottish thing. James was unseated in the whole UK, it just so happened that much like the Battle of the Boyne, the Stewarts went to where they could find most support.

    (Original post by milady)
    But I thought this ended ages ago with King James. He was king of scotland and became king of england as well - a peaceful union - what's the problem with it? Why need complete independance?
    That was the Union of the Crowns in 1603. Scotland remained a sovereign country until 1707 with the same monarch as Englandandwales. Scotland still had a Parliament in Edinburgh, a Chancellor (PM) and a Government until the Act of Union

    I'm from the North West of England and we have a unique culture and political outlook too, it's time all the UK's regions were appreciated and empowered to the same extent.
    You were. We had a devolution referendum in the 70s that failed. Hence we remained centralised. It wasn't raised again until it was suspected it'd have enough popular support... and there was a Labour Government in power. You'd have a similar referendum if there was some sort of demand for it - certain people in Scotland campaigned long and hard for devolution, There aren't many willing to do that in England.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LibertineNorth)
    Both were products of their time. In my mind, William Wallace was not so much fighting for national freedom (no one really does) as individual freedom. When a government oppresses, thats when revolts start. The fact it was an English-loyal government in Scotland mattered little in those times. It was entirely justified and we would be in a very unpleasant position had Scotland been conquered.
    This is actually a myth. Wallace and his peers were not fighting for selfish reasons nor were they fighting in reaction to oppressive acts. They were fighting because they were Scots and had no wish to live under English overlordship - as is shown in 'The Scottish Wars of Independance' by Evan MacLeod Barron. To discuss an 'english loyal government' sounds very dubious to me - what exactly constitutes a government at this time? Nationalistic feeling was widespread in Scotland at this time - even in English Lothian although it abated over time there during the occupation.
    The Jacobites were foolish. I don't believe in the divine right of Kings and I believe that if Parliament wishes to remove the monarch in extraordinary circumstances it should have that right. Since this is a thread about Scotland, I should also point out that the Jacobite risings weren't really a Scottish thing. James was unseated in the whole UK, it just so happened that much like the Battle of the Boyne, the Stewarts went to where they could find most support.
    I agree regarding the divine right of kings. As regards the risings being a 'scottish' i dont see how the fact he was unseated as king of both Scotland and England rather than simply the latter can be relevant. The pretenders recieved almost all their support from the Scots who were still resentful over the union and hoped to regain a certain eminence for their language and culture by putting the stewarts back on the throne.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    My point regarding Wallace was that I doubted he'd have risen if it wasn't for the English overlords being oppressive. The legend that his wife was murdered by an English sheriff, if true, may go some way to explaining this. If Balliol just kept quiet and played his usual wittering sissy role, nothing more would've been said. The irony of course is that Wallace fought to restore the most infamous English puppet as our King.

    The Jacobite rising is misunderstood. As I said, it was fought where James could get support. I don't think it has any more bearing on the relationship between Scotland and England than that, yet is often seen as a simple Scots v. English battle. There were Scotsmen and Englishmen on both sides.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LibertineNorth)
    My point regarding Wallace was that I doubted he'd have risen if it wasn't for the English overlords being oppressive. The legend that his wife was murdered by an English sheriff, if true, may go some way to explaining this. If Balliol just kept quiet and played his usual wittering sissy role, nothing more would've been said. The irony of course is that Wallace fought to restore the most infamous English puppet as our King.
    Wallace, like the other Scots, would have risen because he was a Scot and had no wish to be ruled by a foreign race and foreign king. The evidence of widespread revolt, by Scots of all standing, across Scotland as soon as Edward crossed back into England destroys the myth that Scotland would have been quite happy to carry on under English rule but for supposed oppression. As far as im aware the 'murder' of Wallaces wife is total myth.

    To quote Evan Barron regarding the build up to the wars of independance:
    "It is usually assumed, and frequently stated in histories of Scotland, that the rising of the Scots which is placed in May 1297 was due to the oppression of the officials whom Edward had set over Scotland. That view is entirely erroneous.. The acts of oppression of which the English officials were undoubtedly guilty may in some cases have been the occasion of revolt, byt they were certainly not the cause. The cause, as we have seen...lay very much deeper, and it is indeed somewhat extraordinary that any Scottish hstorian should have thought it necessary to ascribe the risings of 1297 to any cause so superficial as the behaviour of Edwards officials. The whole history of Scotland prior to 1297 shows the Scots to have been a warlike and independent race, ready always to resort to arms in defence of what they deemed their freedom or their rights...

    ...The history of Scotland prior to the year 1297 has been written in vain, if it is seriously contended that there would have been no rising against the domination of England in 1297 and subsequent years had it not been for extraneous causes such as the oppression of English officials"
    The Jacobite rising is misunderstood. As I said, it was fought where James could get support. I don't think it has any more bearing on the relationship between Scotland and England than that, yet is often seen as a simple Scots v. English battle. There were Scotsmen and Englishmen on both sides.
    Surely the fact that it only found anything like widespread support amongst Scots makes it a Scottish issue? As for there being men of both nations on both sides of course the Scottish contingent fighting for the Hanoverians (ive seen it stated as either 1/3 or up to 2/3 of the total force) but the number of Englishmen fighting for the Jacobite cause was negligable. I agree that it is misleading to put the rising forward as a simple case of Scot vs English (and it is a major fault with our education that this is often how it is portrayed) but it is easy to understand why people could view it as such.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    Wallace, like the other Scots, would have risen because he was a Scot and had no wish to be ruled by a foreign race and foreign king. The evidence of widespread revolt, by Scots of all standing, across Scotland as soon as Edward crossed back into England destroys the myth that Scotland would have been quite happy to carry on under English rule but for supposed oppression. As far as im aware the 'murder' of Wallaces wife is total myth.
    Out of all the things that make a King remote, foreignness was hardly the greatest. We're talking about a time when the upper classes spoke an entirely different language from the common man. If you think being Scottish would've naturally changed people's opinions about Edward, then I believe you are wrong.

    In the end, the Scots never elected their Sovereign Lord - nor did the English. He was just as imposed upon the people of York as he was on the people of Stirling. The reason no revolt was staged in England was that there Edward ruled with less abuse.

    I don't believe any armed movement in the world has ever truly been staged for patriotic reasons - nations are of little consequence to the single man, while oppression clearly is. This is, of course, merely speculation about a the motives of a man who is more myth than reality. Like King Arthur, our historical accounts of him are far too hazy to conclude very much about him. I honestly believe that most of the 'Wallace myth' as it seems to be called these days was cooked up to give the Scottish people a national hero that was neither Royal nor noble (although it is generally conceeded these days that Wallace was of higher stock than most)

    Surely the fact that it only found anything like widespread support amongst Scots makes it a Scottish issue? As for there being men of both nations on both sides of course the Scottish contingent fighting for the Hanoverians (ive seen it stated as either 1/3 or up to 2/3 of the total force) but the number of Englishmen fighting for the Jacobite cause was negligable. I agree that it is misleading to put the rising forward as a simple case of Scot vs English (and it is a major fault with our education that this is often how it is portrayed) but it is easy to understand why people could view it as such.
    Certainly I accept your point. The risings receive very little historical attention in England (your average Englishman probably couldn't tell you what Culloden was about) and I suppose that is for a reason.

    I still consider it a lot more than simply a Scottish dispute. The Hanoverians and the early Jacobites fought their most significant battle in Ireland and it still receives far more attention there than it does in this part of the isles.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LibertineNorth)
    Out of all the things that make a King remote, foreignness was hardly the greatest. We're talking about a time when the upper classes spoke an entirely different language from the common man. If you think being Scottish would've naturally changed people's opinions about Edward, then I believe you are wrong.
    The foreign classes did not speak an entirely different language from the common man. A significant proportion of them had a different language as their mother tongue but they either picked up the native language through shared lineage (inter marriage of native celtic nobility and incoming norman) or through a day to day need. Robert the Bruce is a prime example - a native speaker of both Norman French through his father and Gaelic through his mother.
    In the end, the Scots never elected their Sovereign Lord - nor did the English. He was just as imposed upon the people of York as he was on the people of Stirling. The reason no revolt was staged in England was that there Edward ruled with less abuse.
    The Scots did elect their sovereign lord through the celtic system of tanistry which existed pre normanisation. As ive pointed out and as has been pointed out by others if you truly believe that the Scottish people of the time would have been perfectly content under a non-scottish king then you are ignoring their history and character prior to the english dominion and the later rebellions - one of the principle factors in the support of the highlanders for the jacobite cause was resentment at the increasing remoteness of their King and the hope that the stewarts, in their gratitude, would give them the respect they expected and rebellions and other revolts have occured repeatedly in Scottish history as a result or at least partially motivated by dissatisfaction with the monarch .The march of Somhairle, Lord of the Isles being motivated by the anglicisation/frankification of the court and monarchy is another prime example. The reconquest of the west coast and isles from the Norse is another. Really you have to ignore the evidence to conclude that the Scots would have been happy under foreign rule but for misrule.
    I don't believe any armed movement in the world has ever truly been staged for patriotic reasons - nations are of little consequence to the single man, while oppression clearly is. This is, of course, merely speculation about a the motives of a man who is more myth than reality. Like King Arthur, our historical accounts of him are far too hazy to conclude very much about him. I honestly believe that most of the 'Wallace myth' as it seems to be called these days was cooked up to give the Scottish people a national hero that was neither Royal nor noble (although it is generally conceeded these days that Wallace was of higher stock than most)
    That is an interesting and plausible opinion but one with which i disagree.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    someone i know is a direct descendant of William Wallace; his name is Ben Wallace
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LibertineNorth)
    You were. We had a devolution referendum in the 70s that failed. Hence we remained centralised. It wasn't raised again until it was suspected it'd have enough popular support... and there was a Labour Government in power. You'd have a similar referendum if there was some sort of demand for it - certain people in Scotland campaigned long and hard for devolution, There aren't many willing to do that in England.
    The government's (both past and present) idea of "devolution" has been to replace county councils with a single regional assembly - this is why proposals fail as it is actually centralisation not devolution. And I think you are very wrong about the level of campaigning for proper devolution in England. Rejection of government models that actually increase centralised political power in the guise of devolution is not a rejection of the true idea of devolution.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I assume you are supporting an English Parliament/National Assembly then?

    I don't really believe that there's actually much demand for it. While you can probably produce some statistics that a large number of English people support the idea, it will certainly be with no where near as much vigour as the Scottish establishment had to go to in order to achieve the devolution we have today.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.