Originally posted by muzzleflash
Originally posted by CRB86
To paraphrase an old scottish folk singer, the first casualty of British imperialism was England.
And the United Kingdoms of England and Scotland, was a scottish idea, enacted by a scottish king, because the scots were bankrupt.
Revisionism: a load of bollocks.
What are you talking about the Norman Conquests? Elaborate.
Claiming the UK is a Scottish Idea is total bs. Tell that to Edward I. How could the Scots have a "war of independence" against it's self? Doesn't make any sense.
If I am wrong explain in detail so I can learn something new. As far as I am concerned, Scotland is a conquered territory. Wales too.
If you think revisionism is bullocks why are you blatantly doing it?
Right, a brief history of The Act Of Union 1707, and before.
First of all, the normans are irrelevant to this discussion. I'm not quite sure why you bought them up.
The Scots wars of Independence, 1296-1328 and then 1332-1357, were indeed fought between England and Scotland. However, the English were not an occupying force, they merely intended to be one. The Scots drove them out twice, and no significant conquering was done (a period of 15 years between the death of William Wallace and the Declaration of Arbroath, where Edward I was considered to be King of Scotland, was the extent of it)
And so they too'd and fro'd for many years, fighting sporadic wars here and there, but Scotland remained independent of England. It was never conquered, and after a while both sides just left each other alone. The English fought 100 years war with the French, the Scots helping their Auld Alliance every now and again, but that's really all that happened.
So you see, Scotland was never taken. It was never conquered. Braveheart is not a documentary.
Fast forward 300 years, and things are different. The two countries are at peace, and have been for a while. The scots wanted to begin an empire, in a direct penis envy of England's East India Company;
The collapse in 1700 of attempts by Scotland to launch a trading empire to rival England's East India Company in Panama was a pivotal moment. Crippled by poor supplies and illness, it was quickly abandoned, losing some £400,000 - half of Scotland's available capital. For pro-Unionists it was conclusive evidence that Scotland's future prosperity was best served by union.
from
www.guardian.co.uk...
And so, in a poorly attended Scottish Parliament the MPs voted to agree the Union and on 16th January 1707 the Act of Union was signed. The Act came into effect on May 1st 1707; the Scottish parliament was dissolved and England and Scotland became one country.
Sold out? Perhaps. Against public opinion, very possibly. But a conquered territory? No chance.
I realise this doesn't sit with the anglophobia rampant amongst the 'celtic tigers' of America, who generally see everything England as bad, and celtic as innocent., but the Scots were equal partners in the British empire, and contributed as much to the enslavement and exploitation as the English did.
As for Northern Ireland, that's too complex to get into now, but you may want to research the Ulster Scots and see that that too has very little to do with the English.
Hope this helps.
but it is easy to forget how this is a 2 way relationship and we in Britian do still feel close to
Canada.. 
