"Union of the Crowns" Repairing the damage of an Incorrect History Lesson

[Sakhu]

I really cannot understand why so many people in Scoltand want to break away from England and become independent. I really think people need to be reminded first of all that it was Scotland's King James V1 which united England, Scotland, and Ireland into one. This is the 400th celebration of the "Union of the Crowns" this year. Although the parliment did not take effect until 1707 to pass such a resolution to all the violence which came before.

However, even the queen today should be reminded that she is a decendent of James V1 of Scotland, later King James 1 of England, and that technically Scotland rules over the United Kingdom, not England.

King James 1 of England changed his coat of arms to include England 1st, within the 1st and 4th quarters of the sheild, instead of the lion rampant which is more technically correct. Thus, making England appear to be the "Big Cheese". In doing so, James 1 of England seemed like a traitor of his own people of Scotland. However, as I review the history, I believe he put England first in order to prevent further conflict, and bloodshed upon the Scottish people. Since he was a devolt Christian, and Catholic, he could not approve of such a discord amoung nations.

Unfortunally, since this time England has forgotten that its' roots lie back with the 1st clan of Scotland, back to David 1, the Saint of Scotland, and Saint Margaret his mother. The coat of arms which the Queen now assumes is carried forth from the 12th century of King David 1 of Scotland,the Saint. So in fact, it is true, that Queen Elizabeth sits on the throne of King David, but not from Bibical times like some religious people think, but rather from the very roots of Great Britain's history beginning with the clans of Scotland.

Once the "Queen of England" reviews this history, then I think things will become much more lighter in the hearts and minds of the Scottish people. Of Course Scotland should be Independent as to having it's own local government, but not break away from being united with England and Ireland. Nor should Northern Ireland do the same, as Northern Ireland was settled by the Scots.
This mutural feeling that both Scotland and Ireland shares of being "Second Rate" toward England should end.

Schooling, jobs, and opportunities should be spread around equally among the population, regardless of the origins of Great Britains peoples.

There is so much "belly aching" too that the English, and Scots are being weeded out of the population from foreigners. While this appears to be going on, this is more the reason why Brits should take pride in their heritage, and reserve their culture, and language. But growth of a nation does not come from biggotry, but from exceptance of change.

Welcome the challenge of diversity, learn and grown with that and see what leadership comes out of Scotland for perhaps the world to one day witness.

[ANDY-J2]

I believe that Scotland should be independent because we are one of Europe's ancient nations and we have a seperate and distinct sense of national identity-it is therefore right and proper that we should once again be a sovereign independent state with a say in how we are governed.There are however sound economic arguments for Scotland becoming independent.Governments in Westminster understandably have tended to pursue economic policies which are geared towards the economy of southern England which relies predominantly on service industries.Although Scotland is not as industrialised as it once was,we still rely heavily on manufacturing industries and inevitably therefore the policies which benefit England tend to be detrimental to Scotland's economy.Manufacturers in Scotland struggle to compete with overseas companies.Independence would not be a panacea for Scotland's economic problems however I believe it would benefit us if we were able to pursue economic policies which were geared to our own unique needs rather than to the needs of middle England.

[Celyn]

Originally posted by Sakhu
I really cannot understand why so many people in Scoltand want to break away from England and become independent. I really think people need to be reminded first of all that it was Scotland's King James V1 which united England, Scotland, and Ireland into one. This is the 400th celebration of the "Union of the Crowns" this year. Although the parliment did not take effect until 1707 to pass such a resolution to all the violence which came before.

[/i]

An end to violence? And you seem to include Ireland in that?

Originally posted by Sakhu

..........and that technically Scotland rules over the United Kingdom, not England.

[/i]

Surely "technically", the point is that it is supposedly a union, with no single constituent nation taking precedence over another?
[/quote][/i][/b]

Originally posted by Sakhu


However, as I review the history, I believe he put England first in order to prevent further conflict, and bloodshed upon the Scottish people. Since he was a devolt Christian, and Catholic, he could not approve of such a discord amoung nations.

[/i]

The "preventing further conflict" bit did not work too well.

Originally posted by Sakhu

...... Of Course Scotland should be Independent as to having it's own local government, but not break away from being united with England and Ireland. Nor should Northern Ireland do the same, as Northern Ireland was settled by the Scots.

[/i]

I think that is a strange definition of "independence".

Originally posted by Sakhu



This mutural feeling that both Scotland and Ireland shares of being "Second Rate" toward England should end.

[/i]

Are you quite quite sure that Scotland and Ireland feel inferior to England? Incidentally, how about Wales? It seems to be getting left out in the cold a bit. And of course, would your perception of this feeeling of being "Second Rate" as shown by the nation of Irelanddiffer in any way ftrom your perception of such a feeling in the 6 counties in that island known as Northern Ireland?

[Sakhu]

Yes, Andy....
To a certain extent you are right Scotland should be independent, but not in a total break away from England as technically both share the same history since the beginning of the formation of the Clans, which took place up in Scotland in the 12 century.

The same as in America. There are 50 States. Each state has it's own representation, Senators, and Congress working for them in the Capitol of the U.S. which is in Washington, D.C.

But would America be the same if we were split as independent nations because of various economic situations, and or affluent race population or cultural/religious differences?

Pakistan was once part of India until the English split them up in the mid 1900's. They did this based on Hindu religious cultural clashes, and Muslim religious cultural clashes thinking it would bring about a lasting peace, but the fact is the violience esculated and now the treat of nuclear war between the two countries has grown to a real concern. I'm not saying this will become the case in regards to Britain. But surely it is better to make amends than to bring means to an end.

[Celyn]

Originally posted by Sakhu
........
The same as in America. There are 50 States. Each state has it's own representation, Senators, and Congress working for them in the Capitol of the U.S. which is in Washington, D.C.

But would America be the same if we were split as independent nations because of various economic situations, and or affluent race population or cultural/religious differences?
........

So as long as the constitutent states of "America" (or perhaps the U.S.A.) have their own congresspeople, senators etc, it would be prefectly acceptable for the U.S.A. still to be ruled by Great Britain.

Bit of a waste of time having had that war of independence then, and bothering with new national anthems and so on.

[Sakhu]

LOL. Yes, that would have been a waste of time if the U.S.A, was physically attached to Great Britain as Scotland and Wales, and so close as Ireland is. But since the U.S.A. was three thousand miles over the Atlantic Ocean and spread out an additional three thousand miles across, I think that justified breaking away from British Rule, and governing ourselves over here. But needless to say, we are still related by blood to the Brits, most of us that is to say.
I still have cousins I keep in touch with in Scotland, and they visit here and we visit there.

[Celyn]

But if physical attachment, so to speak, is the primary criterion, how much sense does it make to have a U.S.A. exactly? I mean the whole of America might as well be one, by that logic.

And it would have saved a few land-grab* squabbles with Mexico.

And made for a really astonishing looking flag!



(First attempt at typing that actually said "lad-grab" - oops - not quite what I meant!)