The hating of the English.

Scotland won their freedom from England at Bannockburn and remained unconquered after that. It was actually the Scottish crown that took over kingship of England with the union of the crowns.
 
Richdog said:
They were conquered in medieval times weren't they? http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/utk/scotland/conquered.htm
Click to expand...

However that was almost a thousand years ago and has no bearing on the current political Union between Scotland and England and Scotland wasn't technically conquered, it was occupied after William the Lion was captured by Ranulf de Glanvill while trying to take Northumberland from Henry II. The Treaty of Falaise was signed by William the Lion in order to secure his release, that treaty made Henry II his feudal Lord.....and it only lasted for 15 years before Richard the Lionheart sold the rights back to William in order to fund the third crusade.

Richdog said:
It may have been on and off over the next centuries, but my general meaning was clear I think. Obviously they would not be a vassal in this century...
Click to expand...

nor in any of the preceding eight centuries either. The issue was always with claim to the Crown between rival Kings and pretenders to the Throne such as illustrated between Edward I and John Balliol, something that was negated by James' ascension to the English Throne.
 
Last edited:
neodude said:
Scotland won their freedom from England at Bannockburn and remained unconquered after that. It was actually the Scottish crown that took over kingship of England with the union of the crowns.
Click to expand...

Didn't go quite as well for the Stuarts at Culloden though.... ;-)
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
However that was almost a thousand years ago and has no bearing on the current political Union between Scotland and England and Scotland wasn't technically conquered, it was occupied after William the Lion was captured by Ranulf de Glanvill while trying to take Northumberland from Henry II. The Treaty of Falaise was signed by William the Lion in order to secure his release, that treaty made Henry II his feudal Lord.....and it only lasted for 15 years before Richard the Lionheart sold the rights back to William in order to fund the third crusade.



nor in any of the preceding eight centuries either. The issue was always with claim to the Crown between rival Kings and pretenders to the Throne such as illustrated between Edward I and John Balliol, something that was negated by James' ascension to the English Throne.
Click to expand...

While I could have, like you, gone and Wiki'd the situation in exact detail... my point was just that England has a history of oppressing or bullying its neighbouring countries. One hundred years, five hundred years... history still often has a bearing on modern viewpoints.
 
UK? unfortunately united we aren't, I have spent a little time in Ireland and the hatred towards the brits as I was refered to is obvious, though not all were hostile towards me.

Scotland is a beautiful country and I have jock friends who i'd die for, very nice people although I have been called an English ******* by a few of em, I also got a bit of jock in me from me dads side.

I can accept that some don't like the English but for the life of me can't understand why those who dislike us come to live here and i'm not just talking about the UK here.
 
Richdog said:
While I could have, like you, gone and Wiki'd the situation in exact detail... my point was just that England has a history of oppressing or bullying its neighbouring countries. One hundred years, five hundred years... history still often has a bearing on modern viewpoints.
Click to expand...

You should have gone and wiki'd the situation yourself, then you would see that it was rarely the case that England simply went around suppressing and bullying their neighbours....in many cases the occupation was predicated by an attack on English interests, landowners or was related to family disputes over hereditary rights. That is not to say that their were not cases where it happened, particularly in Ireland by Cromwell, but again that was predicated by their support and alliance for the English Royalist Party and the Confederate Irish Forces aim was to invade England to restore the Monarchy, just like the occupation of Scotland by Henry II was predicated by William of Lions invasion of Northumberland.
 
I used to have a Welsh girlfriend, and we went to visit her parents a fair few years ago now, and we went into the local pub. There was a bunch of lads at the bar all speaking Welsh, knowing well that my girlfriend was Welsh and I was English and couldn't understand what they were saying. My girlfriend could clearly overhear them saying things like "English stealing our girls" along with other insulting remarks. I was completely oblivious to the whole thing, but we had to leave.

I do however consider this to be such a minority of people, and all other Welsh people have been very friendly and welcoming. Same with the Scots, good banter, but that's all it is, banter.

I love Scotland though, Edinburgh is fantastic.
 
neodude said:
Indeed. But that has nothing to do with Scotland vs England. It was a British civil battle.
Click to expand...
Yes, although it was in large part the remnants of the Scottish stuart royal family and highlanders with it's French supporters against an English lead government coalition on behalf of the Hanover royal family, with German, ulstermen and lowland scots units(it wasn't quite that simple but it'll do for GD :) )

Just highlighting these things are never clear cut and it wasn't quite as simple as plucky scots throwing off the English yoke at the bannock burn and the Scottish crown "taking over the kingship of England".

Interesting to hear you use those terms though, a bit like the Murray being British if he wins and a scot if he loses. Bannockburn was a Scottish victory, Culloden was a "British" civil battle, although I have no doubt if the Jacobites had prevailed it would have been a "Scottish victory" ;)

As always, history is a lie agreed upon, generally written by the victors. :)
 
Athanor said:
Interesting to hear you use those terms though, a bit like the Murray being British if he wins and a scot if he loses. Bannockburn was a Scottish victory, Culloden was a "British" civil battle, although I have no doubt if the Jacobites had prevailed it would have been a "Scottish victory" ;)
Click to expand...

I'm not using those terms for any other reason other than them being the truth. During Bannockburn Scotland and England were separate countries with their own monarchs. During Culloden there was no Scotland or England, there was the UK, with 1 man and his followers trying to take the British crown from another man and his followers. If anything it was a religious conflict.
 
well maybe it's because the politicians (admittedly not english but does the general public care) keep screwing us around when as scottish/welsh citizens all we get is the ****?
 
neodude said:
I'm not using those terms for any other reason other than them being the truth. During Bannockburn Scotland and England were separate countries with their own monarchs. During Culloden there was no Scotland or England, there was the UK, with 1 man and his followers trying to take the British crown from another man and his followers. If anything it was a religious conflict.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but i'm pretty sure a lot of the Scots here would say Scotland and England were, and still are seperate countries, albeit with a unified monarchy ;). Just wondering if you would say in all honesty Culloden moor wouldn't have been painted as a Scottish victory over the English if the Jacobites had prevailed? Your comment just struck me as an interesting description given the comments around Murray being British or Scottish earlier in the thread.
 
Athanor said:
Just wondering if you would say in all honesty Culloden moor wouldn't have been painted as a Scottish victory over the English if the Jacobites had prevailed?
Click to expand...

Your probably right it would be painted as such. Doesn't make it factually correct though. The uneducated just jump on the bandwagon though and distort the truth. William Wallace is a prime example. Portrayed as a hero for Scottish freedom who could do no wrong, as far from the truth as you could possible get tbh.
 
neodude said:
Your probably right it would be painted as such. Doesn't make it factually correct though. The uneducated just jump on the bandwagon though and distort the truth. William Wallace is a prime example. Portrayed as a hero for Scottish freedom who could do no wrong, as far from the truth as you could possible get tbh.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, I think we're in agreement.

which brings us back to where we came in, old prejudices and imagined grudges based on a simplistic version of history all too often manipulated by misguided nationalists and bigots should have no place in a modern world.

For all it's bad points, Empire stands as an example of what the people of the British Isles can achieve when they work together instead of lapsing back into old enmities.

There's far more we have in common than separates us, and like a squabbling family god help the external nation that tries to take advantage of any one of the home nations.
 
neodude said:
If Murray wins Wimbledon he will be referred to in the media as "British"
If Murray loses Wimbledon he will be referred to in the media as "Scottish"
Click to expand...

Funnily enough before the final EVERY article I read spoke about Murray being Scottish. I even read one piece that stated that Alex Salmond would be shouting about him as British when he lost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom