Scottish Independence

Religious leaders created the political situation afflicting Scotland.

www.scotclans.com...

"The Covenanter ministers were causing a lot of trouble. It was the ministers who provided the funds which paid for the army. This meant the ministers had power over David Leslie’s troops. The plan had been that Leslie’s army were to attack Cromwell’s men on the 1st of September, while the English were practically defenceless, but the Covenanters would not allow them to do this simply because it was a Sunday. Many believe that had Leslie been given permission to launch an offensive on the 1st, then the outcome of the battle would have been a lot different."

"The English were in a very desperate situation. Many of the men were close to death, moral was low and it looked like defeat was imminent. Especially as the Scottish army now had 14,000 men, sitting in the superior position. History shows a very different outcome, the next 24 hours saw the fate of the doomed English receive the miracle that not only saved their lives but probably dictated the future events that shaped Scotland’s future.

David Leslie wanted to wait with his men positioned on top of the hill, and force Cromwell into the situation where they needed to either attack a stronger army up-hill, or stay put and starve to death. Unfortunately for Leslie, the rather foolish and overconfident Covenanter ministers were impatient and demanded that Leslie moved his men down Doon Hill, and prepare for battle. At 4 pm on the 2nd of September, Leslie repositioned his troops at the foot of Doon Hill. Upon seeing this Cromwell could not believe his luck, and quickly thought of a strategy to turn the tables on the Scots. Under the cover of darkness Cromwell repositioned a large proportion of his troops to face the Scottish right flank, waiting to attack just before sunrise. On the 3rd of September English forces launched a surprise attack on the left, and centre flanks of the Scottish troops. They were held by the greater numbers of the Scots; however the English on the right managed to power their way through the Scottish flank and cause significant damage. Seeing this carnage thousands of the Scottish troops fled the battlefield and the battle was effectively over."

"With the captured soldiers, Cromwell simply could not cope with 10,000 men, so around half were let go because they were either too ill or too injured from the battle, and he really had no use for them. At dawn on the 4th of September the 5,000 soldiers considered too dangerous for release were force-marched south to Durham, an eight day, 118 mile journey under the control of Sir Arthur Haselrigge, which was to become known as the ‘Durham Death March’."

On the 11th of September the Scottish prisoners were locked in Durham Cathedral. Does that date have any significance?

"With next to no food, water, or heat it is said that the Scots were dying at an average of 30-a-day, though with some days the figure was around 100. By the 31st of October of the 5,000 that had started the “death march” to Durham, over 3,500 died due to the disgusting and unimaginable way that they were treated. For the 1,600 that died in Durham Cathedral none were treated any better by the English in death than they had been in life. All were thrown into a mass grave, buried without coffins, without a Christian service, and without any form of marker to acknowledge their presence. Of those who survived 900 were sold as slaves and sent off to the colonies in the New World, primarily to Virginia, Massachusetts, or Barbados, whilst the remaining 500 were sent off the following spring to fight in the French army.

The mass grave for the Scottish soldiers was not discovered for nearly 300 years when, in 1946, workmen installing the cathedral with a new heating system came across the bodies."

I lived in Durham as a child. I remember running my hands over the damaged Neville effigies and asking what had happened. I was told the damage was caused by a dozen cattle raiders locked in overnight. Others I've spoken to have been told the same lie. www.durhamworldheritagesite.com...

northeasthistorytour.blogspot.co.uk... It may not be a secret but it is grossly misrepresented.

The exact position of the grave is not clear. Commonly it is said to be directly in front of the main door. www.durhamworldheritagesite.com...

Wikipedia says, "From 1638 to 1651 the Covenanters, led by Archibald Campbell, 1st Marquess of Argyll, had been the dominant party in Scotland, directing policy both at home and abroad. Their power had been seriously weakened, however, by Cromwell's victory at Dunbar in September 1650 and was practically destroyed after the Battle of Worcester and the English occupation of Lowland Scotland. Under Cromwell's Commonwealth, Scotland was forced into a temporary union with England and the General Assembly of the Kirk lost all civil power."

This doesn't add up to me. I suspect a complex conspiracy with strong relevance today.

a reply to: Kester
But Scotland was independent again from 1660, so the battle of Dunbar was hardly responsible for the current Union.

Wikipedia says, "From 1638 to 1651 the Covenanters, led by Archibald Campbell, 1st Marquess of Argyll, had been the dominant party in Scotland, directing policy both at home and abroad. Their power had been seriously weakened, however, by Cromwell's victory at Dunbar in September 1650 and was practically destroyed after the Battle of Worcester and the English occupation of Lowland Scotland. Under Cromwell's Commonwealth, Scotland was forced into a temporary union with England and the General Assembly of the Kirk lost all civil power."

This doesn't add up to me. I suspect a complex conspiracy with strong relevance today.

Yes, they lost a battle so they lost power, which is the usual result of losing battles.
What exactly "doesn't add up"?

a reply to: Kester

Me thinks you believe in Fairy Tales.

Cromwell had the worlds first professional army......The New Model Army.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Scots and anyone else who came up against them where no match.

i,m a pure scot and don,t want anyone thinking i,m not but this driffle from hundreds of years ago about scots and english fighting should not even be coming into this independence debate.

it was hundreds of years ago and now we,r a united country,those that are even bringing the past up should let go and realise most of us have moved on from that.

even tho i hate cameron i still believe that a united kingdom is the best for us all.

a reply to: sparky31

I am a firm yes but completely agree that events of hundreds of years past should have nothing to do with the referendum.


Also totally agree about Cameron.

The past should be left where it belongs, in the past.

The reason why we are part of the Union now is because Rich Scottish Land owners and Lords Bankrupted us with the failed Darien scheme. In order to get some of their "own" money back they sold us all for less than a pound the parcel o Rouges..Parcel of Rouges

And just to make sure we would fall under Englands rule, England threatened to starve the Scots to death with the Alien act (Alien Act) if they, the Rich, didn't accept their "oh so generous terms.

At least this time round we get to vote. Doesn't really matter though as the Main stream media are doing their very best to destroy Scotlands chances of becoming independent....Why?..
Maybe it's because they are English based/controlled and David Cameron has warned of the consequences of loosing 90% of oil revenue.

It''s not that we are "Better together" it more like The tables have turned and this time England will be up **** creek without a paddle.

Oh, and while i'm going off on one..We want our Waters back. Stole this on the quiet

a reply to: Soloprotocol
I've always thought it illogical and inconsistent that advocates of Scottish independence should have a sense of grievance about the Alien Act. If you want to be a foreign country, you can hardly complain about the possibility of being treated as a foreign country.

The English had spent the whole of the seventeenth century not wanting union with Scotland and rebuffing any attempts by monarchs to put it forward. James and William III both tried.
The only kind of union the English wanted was foreign policy co-ordination. That is, they wanted not to have invasions from the north in the middle of wars with other countries.
They had that from 1603, so in 1700 England was quite happy with the status quo.

After Darien, the Scots were interested in economic union

The Alien Act was a response to two Acts made by the Scottish Parliament, namely the Act anent Peace and War, which prevented Scotland being drawn into English wars without Parliamentary consent, and the Act of Security, which insisted that the next Scottish king must be a person NOT chosen as king of England. This was effectively blackmail; unless you English give us the economic union which we want, we will break up the foreign policy connection

The final Act of Union was a deal in which those two interests were traded off. The union of Parliaments meant both economic union and foreign policy union.
This could be done without trying to unite the churches or the legal systems, so they were left alone.

Even now, I doubt if Scotland really wants financial independance in the sense that all the money spent in Scotland would be raised in Scotland. The patriots want to leave the family home without giving up the regular receipt of pocket-money.

so true
i just hope the scots choose to stay a part of Great Britain (im english btw)
i love scotland and its people its the Great in Great Britain

a reply to: sparky31

If we had a decent government in Westminster then the whole idea of independence would be a non starter...but this question of independence couldn't have come at a better time. The world has seen a lot of changes recently, so many countries have disaffected populaces and entrenched establishments are being questioned more than they ever were. The internet is a fabulous tool.

People say 'better together' and I say 'when was that?'...we are like a mini European union.

We need change and it won't come from Westminster. People are so blind and selfish that they don't think it through. We owe it to ourselves and our children to do something radical. This opportunity may not present itself again for many a long year.

Salmonds vision for Scotland is a joke but if by some unlikely miracle Scotland did become independent then he may find that many Scots have different ideas and he may not be in power very long.

We also don't have to worry about going 'belly up'...if we find ourselves in need of a little support...we have our own dear English neighbours who will no doubt rally to our assistance. You know...those that say better together...

It should be a happy adventure. Whats to fear? Nothing to lose and everything to gain. This is what sites like ATS should be supporting. A small country with a chance to re-invent itself.

And lest ye forget...we get to ditch the 'city of London', Bank of England. Whitehall, House of lords, Westminster, Church of England...etc...The questions of Europe and the monarchy...we can wait and see how that developes. I think we would want a referendum on Europe...

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Even now, I doubt if Scotland really wants financial independance in the sense that all the money spent in Scotland would be raised in Scotland. The patriots want to leave the family home without giving up the regular receipt of pocket-money.

Considering we sent down £62 billion with the oil revenue generated included in that figure and we got £30 billion back and westminster are about to cut a few billion off our "Pocket Money",
Why would we be concerned about how much we raise here in Scotland?...seems to me we would be £32 billion better off after Independence..

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
...and westminster are about to cut a few billion off our "Pocket Money",

My point was that genuine financial independence would involve wanting NO money from Westminster (not complaining that it was being reduced).
When the SNP renounce that source of income, they will be operating in financial independence.

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
...and westminster are about to cut a few billion off our "Pocket Money",

My point was that genuine financial independence would involve wanting NO money from Westminster (not complaining that it was being reduced).
When the SNP renounce that source of income, they will be operating in financial independence.

And my point was why should we pay London a penny and then need to cap in hand for less than half of what we send down. Who is keeping who here.?
Aye, we are too small and stupid to go it alone... Pffft.

Scotlands overpays for UK Debt

Scotlands oil = Benefit to the Scots

a reply to: Soloprotocol
Genuine financial independence would involve paying no taxes to Westminster, as well as receiving no money from Westminster, so that argument would not apply.
If you want to be independent, go and be properly independent instead of looking for some sort of halfway house.
Also more Scottish M.P.'s in Westminster means no more Labour governments in Westminster. Looks promising.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Soloprotocol
Genuine financial independence would involve paying no taxes to Westminster, as well as receiving no money from Westminster, so that argument would not apply.
If you want to be independent, go and be properly independent instead of looking for some sort of halfway house.
Also more Scottish M.P.'s in Westminster means no more Labour governments in Westminster. Looks promising.

And if and when we get independence we wont be paying anything to westminster or getting it back, so what is your point..?

If the English are stupid enough to vote for the Tories then that will be the Englishmans choice, dont blame Scotland for that decision.

a reply to: DISRAELI

That is the problem with Salmond...he wants to keep all the crap.

We can deal with him at the election that follows independence.


I don't think there really is a labour party anymore.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
...and westminster are about to cut a few billion off our "Pocket Money",

My point was that genuine financial independence would involve wanting NO money from Westminster (not complaining that it was being reduced).
When the SNP renounce that source of income, they will be operating in financial independence.

And my point was why should we pay London a penny and then need to cap in hand for less than half of what we send down. Who is keeping who here.?
Aye, we are too small and stupid to go it alone... Pffft.

Scotlands overpays for UK Debt

Scotlands oil = 0 Benefit to the Scots

originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: DISRAELI

That is the problem with Salmond...he wants to keep all the crap.

We can deal with him at the election that follows independence.


I don't think there really is a labour party anymore.

Exactly...if you dont like Salmond then vote him out in 2015. Most people dont get that. Maybe we are "just to stupid" after all. This is a Vote for Independence not ALEX SALMOND.

I dont know about anyone else but i would rather share the profits of 90% (£32 billion last year) of north sea oil revenue between 5 million that 60 million.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
And if and when we get independence we wont be paying anything to westminster or getting it back, so what is your point..?

My point was that I doubted whether the SNP actually wanted this or were expecting it to be the outcome of a successful referendum. I thought they were hoping and expecting still to be receiving money from Westminster after "independence".

If the English are stupid enough to vote for the Tories then that will be the Englishmans choice, dont blame Scotland for that decision.

Why would I want to "blame" Scottish independence for the demise of Labour governments? Did you not notice that I named myself after a Conservative Prime Minister? I was looking forward to the possibility, since Labour majorities in the past have been provided by seats north of the border. If Scottish independence means the downfall of English Socialism, then bring it on.

My point was that I doubted whether the SNP actually wanted this or were expecting it to be the outcome of a successful referendum. I thought they were hoping and expecting still to be receiving money from Westminster after "independence".

a reply to: DISRAELI

Eh, No.

I was looking forward to the possibility, since Labour majorities in the past have been provided by seats north of the border.

Eh, No they havn't.
Why Labour doesn't need Scotland