Scottish independence, English me would like to understand

paddyanne, the scotch engineered their bankruptcy themselves.

As a Yorkshire lass I do have some sympathy for Scottish independence because I, like many others in the UK, feel that our country is too Londoncentric. I do think though that this is a problem we should be able to solve without breaking up the Union. I would hate to see Scotland go.

What intrigues here is the question of identity. How do you define a Scot, and how do you define Scotland. Isn't it true that what we now call Scotland (and the area that would become an independent nation after a yes vote) was relatively recently a collection of separate kingdoms? and that the border between England and Scotland hasn't always been where it is today?

Many posters are sure they are Scots, just as I am sure I am from Yorkshire, but whereas my family tree tells me I am mostly English (not just Y) and I only have to go back 200 years to find an Irish connection.

The SCOTCH? All credibility out the window there......

What do you call recent?

Kenneth McAlpin was reputed to be king of Scotland from about 843 or 848, but was really King of the Picts. The title "king of Alba" is not used until the time of Kenneth's grandsons, Donald II (889–900 ) and Constantine (900–943).

After the MacAlpin dynasty came Duncan 1 (1034–1040 ) who featured in Shakespeare's MacBeth, and his heirs, then subsequent dynasties until the crowns of Scotland and England were merged after elizabeth 1 died without a successor.

Who was the first King of all England? When was that?

Oh, come on! Dredging up 300y old history (and some more) is ridiculous. Scotland being bankrupt at the beginning of the 18th C is irrelevant to the present.

(And we cut off two Scots monarchs' heads. Don't forget Charles was king of Scotland, too)

I wouldn't be as distraught about Scottish independence as I am about leaving the EU. For a start, Scotland is physically part of our island and we've been peaceful neighbours and friends for nearly 300 years. I don't see why that shouldn't continue.

Not like the mainland of Europe where we've nipped across to fight wars with various bits for centuries, then retreated to our island again. I liked the fact that we were becoming really part of Europe and not likely to fight there again. And no amount of protestations of 'loving Europe but not the EU' convinces me that what we now have is a substitute for being closely involved.

Who was the first King of all England? When was that?

According to the BBC it was Athelstan (c. 895 - 939 AD), grandson of Alfred the Great.

www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/athelstan.shtml

When we fought in Europe in WW1 and WW2 it was to liberate them.

Having read this thread quite closely as it is a subject of interest to me, I have realised that, as with most complex subjects, everyone can quote facts and figures to support their own argument. These arguments are most often based on a deep seated feeling of ‘self’, of belonging, often deep rooted and stemming from one’s background. No amount of rational argument can change these feelings. Today’s society is so complex that any major changes have repercussions that are so widespread and often unintended, as we have discovered with leaving the EU and also with many policy changes in national government. I feel that Scotland splitting from the UK would have similar unforeseeable consequences for all involved.
Maybe we should all try to understand and respect each other’s feelings - discussion can help us understand these but most will never really change their instinctive, very strong, feelings on the subject.

So in terms of ancient independent kingdoms Scotland (Donald II (889–900 ) and Constantine (900–943). ) and England (Athestan Athelstan (c. 895 - 939 AD) ) are about parallel

25Avalon

When we fought in Europe in WW1 and WW2 it was to liberate them.

Completely missing the point, Avalon . And displaying the patronising 'we saved them from themselves' rubbish that has tainted our relationship with Europe.

It's time we bloody well got over it. Which was my whole point about why I was happy to join in the first place and devastated by leaving.

If the Scots get independence how much of the UK national debt will they take with them? It could be calculated in various ways (per capita, acreage, share of the economy). I haven't seen this discussed anywhere.

Interesting post from GrannyRose15 about what defines a Scot. I don't think the borders issue is relevant, because the borders we have today are the ones that are relevant in any discussion of independence.

But as for the definition of a Scot…. I have traced my family tree back 8 generations and all were born in Scotland except for one random Irishman. DH was born in another country but his family moved to Scotland in the Sixties. We both consider ourselves Scots. DSiL however, was born in England and moved to Scotland as a baby. Not only does she consider herself English, she considers her adult children to be English, although they were born and educated in Scotland and have worked in this country all their lives. She believes they have "English blood" and was convinced they would all be sent "home" if Scotland got independence in 2014.

What makes a Scot? Wanting to be one

What makes a 'Scot'?

My niece and nephew, born and raised in Scotland, of English parents, consider themselves to be Scottish.

My mother was Scottish. She met my dad in wartime Belgium and spent the rest of her life living in England. She was always a Scot above all.

everyone , N Irish ,Welsh, Scottish and English should all have a say as to devolution, personally as an Englishman let the Scots have independence, the enmity between the Scots and English goes back centuries with the Act of union of Scotland and England with Scottish MP’s voting to join Great Britain. Read this from travel Scotland, and nothing has changed over 300 years as Scotland was the poor man of Europe and yet again and would be worse off ,with the EU controlling their exonomy, defence etc etc, but I for one say let them have independence, democracy is key here, if needs be let the Northern Irish have a say on independence or re-unification with the south. As someone has said though in the present day all efforts should be put into the covid and economy, and not to further their own agenda, look at the EU and the vaccine spat. Boris did well to get the Brexit deal done, albeit with problems to come so the government can concentrate on the epidemic.
www.scotland.org.uk/history/act-union

Furthermore I was born English but have Welsh/Southern Irish/Scottish roots as do the majority of people in the United Kingdom

the enmity between the Scots and English goes back centuries with the Act of union of Scotland and England with Scottish MP’s voting to join Great Britain.

Goes back a lot further than that....

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Arbroath

The letter asserted the antiquity of the independence of the Kingdom of Scotland, denouncing English attempts to subjugate it.

MaizieD

25Avalon

When we fought in Europe in WW1 and WW2 it was to liberate them.

Completely missing the point, Avalon . And displaying the patronising 'we saved them from themselves' rubbish that has tainted our relationship with Europe.

It's time we bloody well got over it. Which was my whole point about why I was happy to join in the first place and devastated by leaving.

Am I MaisieD? I was responding to your comment that “ we nipped across to fight wars WITH various bits for centuries then retreated to our island again.”
Also they weren’t adverse to nipping over here to conquer us. That’s how England got William the conqueror and then had to fight off Napoleon.
I don’t think we saved countries in Europe from themselvesbut from Nazi Germany under Hitler.

Anyway you should be happy today that Scotland beat England at Twickenham yesterday. The first time since 1983.

Avalon posted ^Also they weren’t adverse to nipping over here to conquer us. That’s how England got William the conqueror and then had to fight off Napoleon^" William believed that he had been nominated as next king, so he had an excuse to come and claim his kingdom. Meanwhile a separate attack in the north by Harald Hardrada from Norway, with a similar agenda, saw Harold's forces rushing up there to fend that off so they were in the wrong place when William and co arrived and they had to rush back again.

A bit of a lack of forward planning by Edward the Confessor, who apparently was too religious to beget an heir or make clear his opreferences, and so precipitated the invasions. Lesson - sort out the succession!

Elizabeth 1, the "virgin queen" didn't have a direct heir either, which was what united the crowns of England and Scotland, peacefully in that case.

Also they weren’t adverse to nipping over here to conquer us. That’s how England got William the conqueror

Still rankles with you does it, 1,000 years later?

and then had to fight off Napoleon.

Military historians of that period would say that we were never in any real danger of being invaded by Napoleon.

(You forgot the Scots, who got as far as Carlisle in 1745)

Then tell me about all the wars fought on our island by continental forces in the interim. None.

Whereas Europe was riven by wars for centuries. In which we were happy to get involved if we saw some benefit to us. Then return to our nice peaceful island...

Anyway you should be happy today that Scotland beat England at Twickenham

I am English. Supposedly of a nation of reverence for sportsmanlike behaviour and 'may the best team win'. Scotland was best on the day. Why should that please or worry me?

Elizabeth 1, the "virgin queen" didn't have a direct heir either

She wasn't even 'legitimate' in the eyes of some...

But you're right. The crowns were peacefully united until James II put his foot in it...

(Goodness, isn't history fun.. )

What is wrong with calling people from Scotland 'Scotch'? After all, we have Scotch Whisky, Scotch Eggs and Scotch Bonnet etc.

Scotch is for things you eat or drink. And maybe corners. And terriers.

It's an Early Modern English contraction of "Scottish" and was mostly used in England.

You can call us what you like, but don't expect an answer.

Elegran

What do you call recent?

Kenneth McAlpin was reputed to be king of Scotland from about 843 or 848, but was really King of the Picts. The title "king of Alba" is not used until the time of Kenneth's grandsons, Donald II (889–900 ) and Constantine (900–943).

After the MacAlpin dynasty came Duncan 1 (1034–1040 ) who featured in Shakespeare's MacBeth, and his heirs, then subsequent dynasties until the crowns of Scotland and England were merged after elizabeth 1 died without a successor.

Who was the first King of all England? When was that?

Alfred the great 848 – 899 AD is often credited with being the first king of England although he was in fact only king of Wessex and not the part of England in which I was born.
I suppose to be absolutely sure you are talking about all of the England we know today as England you have to date it from William 1st who became king in 1066.

And, yes, that is what I meant by "relatively recently".

But what I was wondering was did the king of Alba rule over all of what we now know as Scotland?

What makes a Scot? Wanting to be one.

I fully appreciate your point of view, Alegrias1, but it does make discussion of the arguments rather futile, I'd say.