I suspect that you are correct in supposing that more than two and half centuries might make a difference.
No clue what this aimless spew has to do with anything.
Well, I suppose someone will come into this thread and blame the north-south divide on William the Bastard’s Harrying of the North.
I’m not sure that it’s as narrow as hating Thatcher, which is surely getting to be ancient history itself now. The complaint we hear is “why do we have to put up with a Tory government that we didn’t vote for?”
As an argument for independence, though, it seems circular to me. In any unified country of any complexity, there are always regions that lean strongly one way or another politically. You might as well ask why voters in shire counties have to sometimes accept distant Labour governments in London that they didn’t vote for, or why people in Kansas should be expected to tolerate a Democratic president. It’s just part and parcel of being a unified country.
To argue that Scotland should be independent because it is unfair that English voters sometimes impose their governments on Scotland is to presuppose that Scotland and England should be politically separate. It is a legitimate point of view, but it’s a weak argument since it simply assumes that its premise is true.
Well, I suppose at least one argument is that Scotland (and England, for that matter) has never explicitly surrendered its nationhood to the United Kingdom. Scotland (nor England) is not a constituent state in a federal union. It’s not a province. It’s not a district. It’s not a county. It’s not ever referred to by a term that indicates a subdivision of a nation-state. It’s always been called a “constituent country” or something like that, which at the very least leaves vague as to what it really is. One suspects the reason is so that the Scots (and the English) wouldn’t have to explicitly say that “We concede Scotland (or England) is not a separate nation-state and that Scottishness (or Englishness) is no longer a nationality of its own” or something to that effect.
I won’t quibble with first and last paras, but my point never was that Scots in general supported Charles…my point was that the British forces were led by a man who forever soured generations of Scot emigrants (forced or otherwise) by instructing his forces to kill and rape ordinary Scots without proof of any ill intentions toward the English monarchy. The record is very clear that such atrocities did take place. My contention is that this particular atrocity had a major effect on world history by antagonizing all Scots in the rebelling colonies. Their contribution to fighting the British, who, again, used terror tactics, was instrumental in deciding that the USA would be created. That’s my point.
You have contended, and I cannot rebut it, that today’s Scotland is free of any strain of remaining animosity toward the Brits. Personally, were I to return to Scotland and become a repatriot, I would vote early and often for independence, but…that isn’t going to happen, the people actually there, good British citizens all, will make their own decision.
I’ll be there before the election and see for myself, and, I’m sure you will appreciate, will keep my opinions of the historical British to myself.
At root to all this is religion, the bane of our world.
I grew up in the Northeastern US and have British (English, judging from my surname - I had to check it online) and Irish ancestry with a smattering of Dutch and German. I’ve encountered a small amount of Irish/English friction and am aware of a rather larger but quite manageable share of Yankee/Southern disagreements. I’ve never been aware of any Scotch/English disagreement in the US. The few Scottish-born folk that I’ve known never expressed any anti-English animosity, though they weren’t too fond of Thatcher. So crucible’s sentiments are ones I have no familiarity with. YMMV, etc. etc.
Oddly enough, the patron saint of libertarianism, Adam Smith, grew up in Scotland and lectured at the University of Edinburgh. Admittedly more than a few US liberals claim him as their own as well.
This website reproduces part of the first chapter of this book. It says that while many Scots acquitted themselves well during the American Revolution, most Scottish residents, in fact, were loyalists to the crown. Thomas Jefferson would rail at the “Scottish Tories” for decades.
Also it seems that the bulk of Scottish immigration to the US occurred during the 1800s, well after the revolution. That’s my WAG based on the tables in the link, which admittedly commence in 1820.
Again, though, it doesn’t mean much. There were plenty of Scots in the Government Army doing a lot of that killing and terror tactics; it wasn’t England v Scotland and it certainly did not antagonize ‘all Scots in the rebelling colonies’. Yes, it was bloody and gruesome, but only a total ignoramus marks it up as a reason why Scotland should be aggrieved, and I have never heard of it being used as a pretext for the American Revolution before.
You also contend that in 1746 the English ‘took over everything after 1746 and never relinquished control for a minute’; what do you mean by that? What, specifically, did the English supposedly take over that was not already integrated through the 1707 Union?
Well, religion was a part of it, and you’re a lot closer to the truth than some ridiculous claims of England vs Scotland in 1745. It was a foreign invasion dressed up as a Britain-wide civil war, with the beginning and its climactic end occurring in Scotland.
Yeah, the idea that Bonnie Prince Charlie led to the creation of the U.S.A. is just bizarre on so many levels. It really sounds like the plot of a historical fantasy/romance novel. One could maybe make a case that Canada was a Scottish loyalist country, but even that would be a stretch.
Do we even have any statistics that might show the demographic breakdown for support for independence in America? My unsupported gut feeling is that the revolutionaries tended to be urban intellectuals and businessmen—many with strong ties to England and high society—and that Scottish immigrants were more likely to be rural frontiersmen and Georgia farmers, at least in that window of time. The revolutionary elite were, so far as I know, English and Dutch, not Scottish.
To clarify my individual position relative to Scots in America supporting the Revolution. Generally speaking, most of the Scots ejected from Scotland post 1746, or who came willingly to the US during the 18th century, fell into two groups…the ‘lowland’ Scot who stuck to the Atlantic seaboard, and the ‘highland’ Scot, who headed for the Piedmont and mountainous areas of the Southeast and Pennsylvania.
the common wisdom about those days is that as the frontier edged westward, two groups of people who tended to live in different lifestyles, the Scots and the Germans, expanded in a symbiotic way. The Highlanders did the outward pushing, confronting the dangers of the native reluctance to their expansion…and the Germans provided the towns, with their essential services, the churches, banks, doctors, teachers, etc…
the Highlander, and the Scot Irish beside him, were hardened by the conflict in Ireland where the English send Scots over to take over the country, to displace the Irish savages… When they came to the states they were the immigrant group most ready to endure the frontier hardships, and to break rules to settle beyond the agreed to limits set by such as Weiser and Penn’s descendants.
Part of their group personality was to remember the way Scotsmen were treated by the English in the aftermath of 1746. When the chance came to show their enthusiasm for independence, they showed it. They had no economic interest in defeating the English, just the memory of what they had endured to get to where they were, and the idea that being ‘ruled’ by a local authority was better in every way than being beholden to the Brit.
The Scots along the Atlantic did, too, as you say, divide more into English supporters and non-supporters, with tories being sent packing in some cases.
Do you have source for any of this? It’s rather detailed for idle speculation.
Some of the text above might conceivably describe the Scotch-Irish (Protestants from Northern Ireland with roots in the Scottish Lowlands near the English border), but I’m not believing that stuff about “memories of the aftermath of 1746”. They were a completely different group of people. They would probably have been on the British side in 1746 had they been living there.
Scottish highlanders, on the other hand, mostly emigrated after the American revolution and most emigrated to Canada.
yes, the patterns and incentives for immigration are quite complex. Many Scots supported the crown, even in the Americas.
the common theme, though, is that Scotland’s culture was destroyed (for better or worse) by the influx of English culture. The incentive to emigrate to the colonies was huge all during the 1700’s and early 1800’s, as a minimum. Wealthy and noble imposed their ideas (good and bad) on the matrix of what had been a clan society, and remade Scotland into a different country/culture.
What that has to do with today’s Scotland? today’s Scotland is, truly, an English ‘inclusion’, de facto British as much by where they are as by common interests. Again, I think any sense of wanting political independence from Britain is mostly just politics, but deep down, there is a tinge of animosity left over from the arrogance of the kings of all colors.
Please provide an example of true Scottish culture that people are no longer free to practice today. Is it your position that the Scots should be still living within walled forts under a clan system, Afghanistan-style?
If Scots culture was destroyed, why is there a Scotland that people want to claim independence for?
In fact, the Union protected the Scottish Church and its legal system, as well as its universities and gained considerable economic protections. Also, a feudal remnant of hereditable offices was continued, although that was abolished after 1745 for obvious reasons.
Not at all. Just pointing out that the change from that system to today’s situation was accompanied by great suffering by common folk. Englishmen tend to overlook the suffering they cause their ‘loyal subjects’ while they are in the process of making them ‘loyal subjects’
Once again: not the English. Plenty of Scots were involved too - rich and poor alike.
Stop peddling this ‘the English are evil and the Scots are innocent lambs’, as it’s insulting.
I don’t know if I have a dog in this fight, but aren’t you changing his argument? Whether he might want to live that way today, I don’t know if you can dispute that a combination of British reaction to the Jacobite rising and the Highland Clearances radically changed the way of life in the Highlands, and that a lot of that was brought about by external factors and influence from the rest of Britain.
Not to speak for LC Strawhouse, but you’re not wrong. Scotland was of course heavily influenced in the Union and changed enormously. But it doesn’t necessarily mean it was changes imposed only by the English, or that those changes were opposed by the Scots. The Scottish Enlightenment took place in the 18th Century - one of Scotland’s greatest moments as a centre of political and economic thought, and that in turn heavily influenced how things turned out elsewhere in the UK.
Agreed and furthermore, blaming the Highlanders’ troubles on the “English” completely overlooks the nasty internal class wars that go on within Scotland and have nothing to do with the English. The author Andy Wightman does a good job explaining how the oppression of the Highlands has mostly come from Edinburgh rather than London.