Well, as I said. Selfish interests were not at all absent, but also not the only concerns at work. It can be argued that William may have been dominated by English advisors and he never had much patience or interest for the quirky concerns of those bizarre people to the north.
I think that is conflating two different issues, though… (the investment vs the colony failure)
The E.I.C. did not want competition so they discouraged non-Scottish investment in order to nip the new company in the bud. But the Scots directors went ahead and raised the money within Scotland, so the scheme did get off the ground after all.
If the colony had been successful, then the Scots would have kept ALL the profit for themselves. Problem is, they just didn’t know enough about the Darien or the colonization process. There was also some embezzlement by the directors, in particular, a gentleman named James Smyth.
Apparently, William thought the colony scheme was an annoying distraction as he spent his time trying to avoid war with France and other countries.
Yes, that’s what I’m trying to say. The War of the Spanish Succession was about to break out. Tensions were extremely high in Europe.
Also: the '45 was not a case of England vs Scotland. It was an Irish/French/Highland force against the British (i.e. Anglo-Scots) army. If the '45 had been successful, Scotland would have become an ‘independent’ state but under an absolutist King of the ‘wrong’ (for that time) religion who was beholden entirely to France for his throne.
I suspect most of the world knows quite a bit less about Scottish history than you do, such as it is. Frankly, I’m not sure what you’re talking about: I’ve never seen the movie Braveheart, I don’t know what century it takes place in, and I understand that its main premise is grounded on distortion. Hey, that’s Hollywood.
Having a first world country split up for obscure reasons, however, is disturbing. Unless (IMHO) it’s Belgium, which has been peacefully discussing a breakup for about 100 years now, IIRC: neither side likes the status quo (though both sides prefer the absence of warfare). Obsession with 300 year old events (if that’s what they are) reminds many of us of the Balkans. Or maybe Lebanon. Not the sort of places you want to emulate. As a rule, if your grandfather’s grandfather never knew anybody with direct experience of the incidents in question, I will wonder what you’re going on about. Unless you are drawing universal conclusions.
For example: William who? I’m not criticizing you LC Strawhouse: I’m just noting that like many outside of the British Isles, I didn’t follow the preceding discussion and am claiming that the ROW may greet reports of 600 year old atrocities with some curiosity, but not exactly outrage.
ROW (Rest of World)
No problem, in fact I’m on your side on this issue. I was just digging up facts to make the point that alleged old “English crimes” were nothing of the sort.
Just to fill you in a little: crucible was talking about Jacobite Risings around 300 years ago, shortly after England and Scotland became Great Britain (they already had the same king after James VI of Scotland acceded to the English throne in 1603, but there were still two kingdoms until 1707).
Braveheart is set more than 700 years ago, when England and Scotland just shared an island. It’s also the most historically inaccurate “historical” film I think I’ve ever seen.
coughU-571, in which the United States found the Enigma machine.
I was not talking about Braveheart, but of 400 years later. Charles tried to reestablish his monarchy and the final confrontation, with people of several nations on his side, including Scots, English and French…and people of English and Hessian background on the other… And Charles got his arse handed to him, rightfully so, perhaps…but what I referred to was the aftermath of the relatively minor battle, when Cumberland sent his people into the countryside to kill every Scot with a weapon, and rape every woman they could find…such were his orders. Most of those people had nothing to do with Charles and were killed and raped by foreign soldiers…
Those who could escape escaped. Many wound up in the Americas and thirty years later, they fully supported the idea of kicking the King’s armies out of the Americas. those armies were almost as cruel as Cumberland’s. they committed atrocities, too. Americans were divided between Tories and pacifists and those seeking independence. We killed each other and killed the native Americans supported by the British agents on the Kentucky and New York frontiers. We got the French to help us and we sent the Brits away. There’s many a man in the Appalachians today who will reflexively spit on the ground when England, or their royalty, is mentioned, even today.
Scots, today, are probably as divided over being part of Great Britain as we were in 1774. The issues are very similar. England has been willing to negotiate far more often since 1783 than before. Englishmen, today, continue the tradition of self-assured superiority being expressed toward the rest of the world, but they can’t get by without friends and they now strike the best deals they can.
the desire of one ethnic group or another wanting to separate from a multi-ethnic nation is constantly being tested all over the world. As much in Europe as anywhere else.
What exactly are you trying to say here?
That Scotland isn’t multi-ethnic but the rest of the U.K. is? 
I’m not sure about that. Polls have shown for a long time that the pro-independence side is a long way behind (as you will know, being a keen follower of contemporary Scottish politics). Whereas I seem to recall that the American independence movement was rather successful.
I don’t want to put words in another poster’s mouth, but I assumed he talking about the UK being made up of four different countries.
That makes sense.
I think I was getting confused as I see the four countries being essentially ethnically the same.
(assuming your interpretation is correct)
and, too, the question about percentages…
The historical wisdom about America in the 1770’s is that about 35% of the people ‘supported’ the idea of independence. As many simply wanted to ask the king for redress and to wait as long as needed to get it. the balance could care less, they were too busy trying to make a living.
You know Scot politics and polls… what % support the idea of independence?
Of the entire what, 5 million Scots, how many would say they were of Scot ancestry? The support for independence among those who say their ancestors have lived in Scotland as far back as can be measured is likely higher than among any small group of people with other backgrounds, such as English who have moved to Scotland for one reason or another.
remember, when USSR broke up, Putin said that the worst part of the breakup was the huge number of Russians no longer part of Russia. Russians moving into the Baltic countries during the Iron Curtain years were not an insignificant group. I suspect there are a lot of English in Scotland.
Of course, I have no dog in the fight. I’m just of a mind that the desire of Scots to obtain independence is not based on economics, but history. the conqueror always thinks the folks they gained hegemony over are better off than they had been and will learn to love their masters.
This still sounds like Braveheart “history”. The idea of ordinary people fleeing to the Americas to escape after a battle seems a little much. And 400 years ago, we had James I/VI as monarch of England and Scotland. He was most definitely a Stuart. It sounds like you’re talking about 1745/6.
Anyway, as horrific as it no-doubt was, even in the 18th century, raising armies against your king and marching on London would be expected to be met with harsh reprisals. That’s just the way things were, and singling this out among millions of examples of human brutality throughout history makes little sense.
People don’t really care about “ancestry”. That is an American thing. Hardly anybody calls themselves “Scots-English” or whatever, unless perhaps they have spent a significant part of their formative years in both countries. Probably most Scottish people have English relatives and vice versa.
I mean, if I were American I’d probably bang on about my Irish and Scottish origins, which exist. And Welsh, no doubt, but Americans seem to overlook Wales for some reason. Doesn’t have the cachet of Ireland, I suppose. Maybe we need a Hollywood film about Owen Glendwyr.
That doesn’t reflect the attitudes of those that I know who will be voting Yes.
(Which of course is a very small sample size and tells us nothing!)
History is not the reason I’ll be voting Yes either, I’m voting for the future not the past.
I agree.
Pretty much everyone I know has English ancestors (a lot of Irish as well).
Some voting Yes some voting No.
Ancestory seem to be playing no part in this decision from the discussions I’ve been having with people.