Conflict of nations

[Hirta]

Scottish nationalists often use examples of English expansionism to justify their aim of independence. Naturally to avoid hypocrisy Scotland must have been a peace-loving nation.
Did Scotland ever have designs on England?

[ANDY-J]

It would be fair to say that mediaeval Scottish kings did have designs on England but given the relative difference in the power of each country they couldn't usually afford to pursue their aims with the military aggression shown by English monarchs and on the few occasions when they did it usually ended in disaster.Legal arguments were often preferred,for example in the case of Northumbria to which the Kings of Scots had a valid claim stretching back to the twelfth century.When a King married,his Queen not only brought a substantial dowry but also very often a claim to territory or in the case of James IV who married Henry VIII sister a claim to the entire kingdom of England and for this reason Scots Kings often sought out prestigious English brides.Scotland certainly was never a peace loving nation as is witnessed by the almost continual civil strife which occured in this country throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.Fortunately the English were usually too involved in their own conflicts to take advantage of Scotland's problems.Political realities however prevented Scotland-a relatively weak nation,from threatening England however much Scottish kings may have coveted English territory.

[Hirta]

So what you are trying to say is that often Scotland had the intention, if not the means, to get as much of England as they could?

Yet Scottish nationalists promote the image that Scotland was mercilessly oppressed by the English without any provocation. Yet looking at the history books we find names such as Northallerton (1138), Neville's Cross (1346), Flodden (1513) etc, when Scotland invaded England (often taking advantages of circumstances). No doubt Scotland would have tried more often if, as you suggest, it had more wealth to do so. It seems very hypocritical of these nationalists to 'forget' these incidents.

Why do we insist on placing modern day values on events that occurred hundreds of years ago, when the world was a much different place?

One final question. You describe Scotland being 'a relatively weak nation', yet I have also heard (from other on this board!) that medieval Scotland was a prosperous place, in particular its ports. Of course it was the English who changed all this. So which was it? It doesn't seem fair to have it both ways.

[ANDY-J]

"Mediaeval" covers a very long time period.In modern societies we tend to think in terms of continual economic growth yet in the middle ages there were periods when nations would be relatively wealthy and other times when they would be in economic decline.Scotland in the thirteenth-century was a relatively prosperous nation with a healthy trade in wool and leather with the low countries and Hanseatic league.The wars of independence did disrupt Scotland's economy and it was difficult in times of peace to re-establish previous commercial ties with Europe and thus Scotland's currency was worth less in the fourteenth century than it had been in the previous century and her population was relatively poorer.Scotland,unlike England lacked natural resources and was at the mercy of prevailing economic conditions.It could never compete with England's wealth.The idea that Scotland was a victim of English oppression might be put forward by some nationalists but it is not an idea that historians take very seriously.Having spent a large part of my life engaged in historical study I am in complete agreement that events in the past should not be judged by modern values.I am a nationalist and yet I do not dispute that the union was profitable for this country.I do not base my desire for independence on any historical events-I base it on the fact that from an economic viewpoint independence would be preferable for this country and also I believe that only Scots should have a say in running Scottish affairs.I think the nationalists who promote Scotland as a victim of English imperialism are misguided and are also very much in the minority.

I think Scots Kings' dynastic claims to various parts of England can be viewed in the same light as English Kings' various claims of overlordship of Scotland, or their adoption of "King of France" among their various titles. It seems to have been part of the job description of Mediaeval Kings to try it on with their neighbours and boost their standing with their subjects.

[Hirta]

Originally posted by ANDY-J
.I think the nationalists who promote Scotland as a victim of English imperialism are misguided and are also very much in the minority.

Good! I think that it would be far better for a nationalist (of any nation) to regard themselves as such by loving their country rather than hating others.

[Hirta]

Originally posted by ANDY-J
...I believe that only Scots should have a say in running Scottish affairs.

Are you saying that any minorities in an independent Scotland should have no say in government? How would you dtermine who was a Scot and who wasn't?