english freinds or foes

are the English really our friends or our foes can we forgive them for the past or does the war go on
tell mewhat you think

[Martin2]

Despite my limited grasp of Scottish history it seems the 'old enemy' wasn't just England, it was the in-fighting and division between the Scottish nobility (many of French descent) which pitted clan against clan, highland against lowland. Self-interest ruled the divided nation and, as in all wars, it was the people who suffered.

During the time of Bruce and Edward I those who lived on either side of the Scottish border were subject to siege, homelessness, famine, crucifixion, rape, hanging etc. All people suffer when being used a pawns of war.

Recognition of a common enemy can unite a people, but to me, the enemy of Scotland was and is internal division (united we stand, divided .... etc !).

So, does the war go on? Probably not, the majority seem happy with the Scottish Parliament and it's limited powers. Not many want total devolution as advocated by the SNP. But for me (being English), as I've said, your enemy is within - it's your internal division.

And I don't mind if the Scots support two rugby teams - Scotland, and anyone who's playing England!!

[europeanbriton]

My mother's English and I'm a firm Unionist, so I'm obviously biased. However, I'd like to make a few points.

Firstly - I find it worrying that Scots should be considering not "forgiving" the English for the past. I think it's high time we outgrew such ideas of national revenge, particularly since the truth is usually, if not always, more complex than its supporters would have us believe.

The relations between Scotland and England are a case in point. England was, I agree, involved in plenty of rape, plunder and killing north of the Border - but no one can deny that the Scots did their fair share of the same. Scotland often began wars of its own accord, whether to uphold the "Auld Alliance" or simply to harry England. After 1560 or so, common Protestantism helped to create a healthier relationship between England and Scotland (OK, Elizabeth I did behead Mary, Queen of Scots, but Mary really did ask for it . . .) - and it is notable that the English troops in 1560 left ASAP after the Treaty of Edinburgh was signed, under which no foreign powers' troops were to enter Scotland.

The enforced unions of 1653-4 are often thrown in England's face by Scotland and Ireland. In the latter's case, there is plenty of justification - but it is noteworthy that when Charles I was executed, Scotland was not claimed by Cromwell. The invasion took place when Argyll proclaimed Charles II "King of Great Britain". Had the Duke stuck to "King of Scots", chances are England would have left their northern neighbours alone.

The Act of Union was accompanied by bribery, of course - but a) bribery was an omnipresent part of eighteenth-century politics - many historians comment on how small bribes were! - and b) England was no more enthusiastic than Scotland about Union. Many times before, Scotland had tried to force the pace of integration and England had buried her head in the sand. Of course, circumstances were different in 1707, and England's sabotage of the Darien venture was callous - but it should be remembered that Spain did her worst as well.

The 1745 was not supported by the Scottish Lowlanders any more than by the English, and measures afterwards were taken by the British Parliament. These were inexcusable, but were more a Anglo-Scottish establishment/Highland potential "subversives" issue than an English/Scottish one. It's telling that the term "Sassenach" was overwhelmingly used by Gaels in this period to refer to the English and the Lowlanders, and that Lowlanders referred to the Gaels as "savages", "aborigines" and "Irishmen". The acts continued, whether the prime minister was English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish. Even one fairly anti-English, nationalist history of Scotland only says that many of the sheep farmers were English (and makes a point of saying that the sheep were Cheviot ). So the idea that the Clearances were a purely English crime cuts little ice.

Apart from all this, I think that the days of real Anglo-Scottish enmity passed away in 1707, if not 1560. The Cromwellian period was as much a civil war in the British kingdoms as in England, and Darien is the only incident which leads me to move the date forward. Since Union, England and Scotland have been close allies - Scotland gained technology and imperial opportunity from its partner; England gained security, and men of the finest mettle to manage the joint British empire.

The time has gone by for all talk of "national enmity" between Scotland and England. We're close allies now, and we've joined in a new nation and state - Britain - without eliminating our separate identities. And the football support issue is just a joke - nothing serious. Real national enmity simply doesn't exist between us any more, and I see no reason to create it.

NB. Sorry if this sounds as though I'm jumping down your throat, Colin! *G*

[Vanguard]

Originally posted by colin 30:
are the English really our friends or our foes can we forgive them for the past or does the war go on
tell mewhat you think

Unfortunately the wars do go on in some people's heads. However, if you sit and listen to them, Bannockburn and Culloden are only weapons which are wheeled out when they can't think of anything sensible to say. If you asked them an intelligent question about it, they'd be lost. I avoid the subject in the same company where I avoid political and religous discussion.

I am based in England an often have to listen to the "jokes" and, of course, the "Scottish accents". I know that Englishmen get a hard time from those who are "only joking" in Scotland.

Because you will never stop the jokes and the accents ... you will never stop the "wars"

[Rhiannon_Gloaming]

I am always completely gobsmacked that anyone would want to keep alive a history of abuses that are long past. We've enough to contend with here and now. (Happens over here with African Americans still pointing fingers over slavery pre-Civil War, while most Americans find the Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Nazi's a national embarrassment.) That was then, this is now, the people responsible then -- English, Scottish, Irish or Ishish -- are long gone, gone, gone. They did what they knew no better than to do under social, political, and economic pressures that "forced" them to react a certain way then. No one living now is "responsible" or has to "make up for it." Anyone who tells you otherwise is just using the past for their own current manipulations.

(No, Colin, I'm not referring to you! You asked a question, that's all, I'm not saying you're doing anything. Okay? okay.)

Now, if anyone wants to take the English or Scottish government to task for something they're doing now... well, that's a sensible place to focus energy for change. :-)

Rhiannon
<who finds political discussion overwhelming, as there's always an other side to every side>

[blueface01]

thanks for all the info! i'm giving a speech on scotland's history, and i'm going next year, so it's great to read all that you wrote. also, it's amazing to me that people still care about their country's history, i love history, though my own country's only goes back some over two hundred years.
thanks again.
libby