Um...did I completely miss the part where Scotland and England formed a dynastic union in 1603 after the Scottish king, James VI, succeeded to the English throne as well upon Elizabeth I's death? Officially they remained two separate countries, but this was still a crucial step toward their eventual unification, since their thrones remained united from that point on.
I had the mughal empire and the iroquis trade regions once, it lead to an indian province the middle of America and a native american province in the middle of india
Brady Ward Correction 10% Strong. 55.3% No, 44.7%. 2 million wanted to stay in the UK and 1.6 million wanted to leave the UK. 400K is a big difference when the country is so small.
Only 250 people were allowed to vote on whether to unify with England, of which 180 of them voted. Unsurprisingly most of them were given promises of money, land and titles in exchange for their votes. This caused uproar among the general population, as the vast majority were against it at the time.
Mitjitsu That's right, not such a democratic procedure.... It also went against English Law, and the Scottish Constitution, which is why attempts to unify the two kingdoms were denied previously, (there was previous attempts to unite the two countries into one). The Act of Union of 1707 is an illegal creation that which was created by Elites for their own purpse. How this occured was the corruption of the English Parliament to ratify the Act.
+Rex .Utimatum But if it hadn't have happened Scotland would have been invaded by England without choice. And for 1707 I think it was a democratic procedure when the normal thing to do would have been to annex Scottish territory.
+Robloxian BBC News Not many countries actually opt to be invaded by choice! There was no certainty it would have gone that way. Nor any certainty if force was used it would have worked.England had tried on and off for 600 years to subsume Scotland.Who know what would have happened if force was actually deployed Truth was neither side wanted war particularly from an economic standpoint.
Athiestforlife777 I think it's the other way round: Scrooge is like that because of the cliché of the Scotsmen. The stereotype is way older than Carl Barks invention of Scrooge McDuck.
I love how at 0:13, he has placed flags exactly where they are meant to be. In India, for example, the Portuguese had set up bases in Surat in Western India, the French had set up their base in Pondicherry in South India and the British had set it up in Bengal in East India.
+Saifthebest01 Eddie Izzard - an English Comic from the 90's - has a big sketch about how England took over the world through the use of Flag and being awfully polite.
Decent video, but would be worth mentioning that the "English" Royal Family at the time was in fact Scottish - The Stuarts.....should definitely have mentioned 1603 and the ascension of James VI of Scotland to the title of James I of England!
Sure, it’s a BIT of an oversimplification, but that doesn’t make a “The only time I’ve seen a country fail so badly at colonization that they got annexed” line any less funny
Oh the story is actually sillier than the video suggests. They actually started with 1200 Scots, who encountered the problems described above... ...then a month later Scotland sent two more ships with 300 more Scots to bolster things, except one of them burnt down accidentally, and the other Scots on the other ship saw how screwed everything was, tried to flee to Jamaica, and died of disease on the way. And because it was the 1690's and news travelled slow, 1000 more Scots landed on the gulf and did it all AGAIN.
summer now. algarve is packed with lagostas (means lobsters) we called english tourists lobsters because they try to get a tan like the more darker skin colour and used to the climate Mediterranean people. obviously they are way too white for that and get easily sunburn and turn orange and look like lobsters.
Met a Portuguese girl recently and was excited to tell her all about my holidays in Portugal! She took one look at me and said "Algarve?" RIP my dreams of appearing cultured...
It happens a lot in Australia too. If people ask me what nationality I am, and I say I'm Australian (I was born here, but my parents weren't) they either laugh and say "You don't look Aussie" or ask "No, where are you from really?" but if I say I'm Italian that's perfectly acceptable.
+cultureshock72 Actually, that is not completly true. The Union Jack is a combination between Scotland's flag, England's flag and the flag of the former Kingdom of Ireland.
CGPGrey, I am hopelessly confused about the history and organization of the Holy Roman Empire. If anyone can clear things up, it's you. Please make a video about the HRE!!!
Well basically: We (germans) Had a king. That king was elected by lords (we had like 6-7 of them I think) who ruled over places roughly the size of saxony or bavaria. To get elected, he had to promise these lords or power or straight up bribe them which is why they got more and more power over time until we completely fell apart and were only one country by name. Oh and the king used to be crowned Kaiser by the pope, didn't change his direct power, but was huge for prestige. A few unification wars and a whole lot of bismarck later, we had the second Reich, the Kaiser-Reich up until Willhelm the Second and World War 1. BtW which is why the nazi germany was called the Third Reich. (Reich meaning kinda "Realm" and " Kingdom" at the same time) .
@MrMarmalad nothing of the sorts. Asia is made up of many different cultures whilst the area inhabited by the hre was all german besides the few italian states. Today its a bit different as Germany and Austria have lost lots of land since then but the core of the hre is still where germans live today.
That moment I was five Also I'm swedish Also it's the kingdom of Ireland's flag too It makes the red cross that makes no sense except for matching with the scottish white cross
Sam Wolfenstein The blue around the flag is for continuity with thew colour of Scotland. Similar to the flag of Azad-Kashmir using the shade of Green present on the Pakistan Flag. Maybe it is not blue for Scotland, bu the colour which dominates the flag is what it is because of Scotland. :)
The Pound was actually Scotland's currency before the union, Sterling was used by England, hence when the union was formed, the two currencies were joined and made synonymous, hence 'Pound-Sterling'. Also, William Patterson, the Scot who founded the Bank of England.
The first ship shown while you discussed the journey around the Cape of Good Hope and Cape Horn was a tops'l schooner, a rig of ship that would be woefully unsuited for a long ocean journey like the one required to round either cape.
As far as empires go I get the feeling that England gets all the hate because we were the most successful imperialists. God forbid someone say anything bad against the other countries of Europe with empires.
Stew182 And people shouldn't take what I'm saying the wrong way. I'm not saying the British Empire was a system built by saints or anything, far from it, during the Boer War we may be the first country to have used concentration camps (by accident but still). What I mean is that people, especially those outside of Europe, tend to believe that England was the only country guilty of imperialism.
Lazy Spark Yes. Let's be honest it's probably because we were the best at it, and the biggest empire prior to the realisation that empires aren't morally sound. I will say also that I am Scottish and notice that even here in Britain that people blame the empire on the English. The monarchy was already both countries, and following the act of union Scotland was a substantial part of the empire effort.
Stew182 As a matter of fact, something like fifty percent of British colonial civil service were composed of Scots, who thought of being a civil servant in the colonies a great job and a good opportunity for personal enrichment which indeed was. So the proportion of Scots in the British colonial civil service was rather unproportional for their share in Great Britain population. And quite the same facts can be applied for the share of the Corsicans (people from the island of Corse) in the French colonial civil service. Rather peculiar, I daresay.
The Union transformed Scotland from a Feudal State to a State of Law. The following Enlightenment Period brought the Industrial Revolution. Scots thrived building the Empire. Had Scotland not united with England, it might have ended up being something like Albania or Moldavia.
Or more likely like Norway or Denmark, considering the population, geography and natural resources available.Certainly would have been very different but who knows
DMPepe Hi - I think if you look at the development of Law and Commerce in England, Scots made major contributions to modernize a legal system that had been adopted unchanged from essentially-Norman Law. Law in Scotland, on the other hand,, while it introduced elements of Feudalism,, was continuously developed to incorporate many European elements including some Roman Law
It's a different world today, Scotland would be fine if they went out on their own, beside if they did want out of the UK it would most likely be because they want into the EU.
R Cuthbert Scotland has been playing with independents for decades now so I doubt in or out of the EU it's going to go away, but not the UK is leaving the EU, Scotland have a lot more ammunition to get more out of the UK government or a bigger push to leave the UK altogether, that pressure will likely grow if the EU gives the UK a bad deal, in any case, I suspect the UK government is going to have to bend over backwards to keep Scotland happy now, the north of England are the ones that could pay the big price out of all this.
DanM194/Scotland was never broke dummy the towns and cities still had their monies the only people that were broke were the nobility who were conned rather easily being greed blue bloods and all :-)
So, this means that Scotland is not ruled by England, instead it is more like a "couple"? Thanks a lot, this cleared a lot of wrong points I had about this.
***** However the majority voted to stay and so our kingdoms stay as one. However, Scotland (along with Wales and Northern Ireland) were given more power to rule over their separate countries.
I love CGP Grey videos, but I have to point out that the prior video refers to Great Britain as more of a geographic term (the island itself) than a political one, while United Kingdom is the political term. In that sense, Scotland has always been a part of Great Britain at least in the historical sense. So the title really should be, "How Scotland joined the United Kingdom"
Or 'How Scotland united with England'. The UK didn't exist until 1801. The kingdom of Great Britain was actually a country rather than a union, that is until Ireland joined.
Makes me proud to be British when I see all those flags that marked out our territory.Many Irish catholics in the 19th century joined the famous Irish regiments that fought as Britons but were lost after 1922 and partition does that not make your chest swell with pride Paul (lol mate)
LEGGIE 65 LEGGIE65 chest swell if your Scottish independence but not british, now your just grown adults who never left the british orphanage that you were left in 1707 by your Scottish ancestors.
As I said to you in earlier posts there's many Catholic No's and theres many Protestant yes's the country is divided you may end up with many James Connelly types or Wolfe tones as many Protestant yessers said after the vote they were going to Ireland to stay.
YESSSS... I can't wait for Scottish independence, it's inevitable now with all of Scotland wanting to stay in the eu, defining the popular vote of the UK. They finally have a major thing that unites them, and, I don't know about you, but I would definetly want something that was taken away from me, especially if it's as important as EU membership. They must fight, I will fight for them. I hope you too
England did not bully and blackmail Scotland into political union. It was simply the case of if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Why continue to keep a old dangerous rival at your southern border landlocked against the North Sea when you can united and become a stronger country together. Scotland agreed to this union and England has never ever conquered Scotland. Everytime they tried they got their assess booted back south of the border.
Except for Cromwell of course though one can argue that was also a similar civil war divide. I think you have to be honest and say that economic duress and pressure was an element in the Union,(Aliens Act etc) but I agree it was very much for Scotland a case of wanting access to English colonies and free trade to allow economic growth and after Darien this seemed only way.I think they negotiated a decent settlement but could have done better(a more federal set up).
Actually Scotland didn't get a vote, their leaders were blackmailed into accepting. That's why there was dozens of riots and violence in Scotland at the time. What they should have done was try to ally with the Irish/french and take england.
Ciarán O' Neill The rich lords of the South wanted a union but the Clans of the North didn't. To be honest, almost everyone in Scotland lived in the South, and when the Clans protested against union they were largely ignored (and for logical reasons).
Robitski you are way off. The Scottish Parliament was basically made up of Lowland lairds. The majority wanted to move away from England and break the regal union. The economic pressure and blackmail meant that the parliament accepted the union. Not the same as them all wanting it.
All of this discussion of Scotland being independent from the UK reminds me of Catalonia being independent from Spain: independentists say that they want to have control over their own resources, Unionists say that the economy will go downhill after the independence. But the difference is that Scottish independentists have a more valid point than their Catalonian counterparts (Disclaimer: I am in favor of Scotland still being part of the UK), but Catalonians are more likely to be successful (Another disclaimer: I also am in favor of it being part of Spain). However I bet that the people wanting Catalonian independence is because they speak another language and because Spain's regions hate each other.
Yes, a lot of the Yes voters are uninformed and just wanted to give a middle finger to England "HA! LOOK AT US! HAHAHA! WHAT'RE YA GONNA DO NOW!?". They don't really think about the actual consequences of independence.
1. the isle of man is a seperate state that reconginses the queen as head of state but has its own parliment and laws e.g. no speed limits outside of towns. Cornwall is part of England and therefore not a colony. 2. the english empire was merged into the British Empire as the Kingdom of Scotland and England became one offical nation and therefore the English empire was 'renamed' the British empire.
Yes Crazy.Or was it? The canal showed what was possible.Patterson was just ahead of his time, but combined with lack of logistical planning it was at same time inept and over ambitious for a country our size and resources Same guy who helped found the Bank Of England so not a dolt. I rather admire the fact they had a bash against the big European powers despite their own king basically doing all he could to thwart it. If not for that lots of foreign investors would have shared the losses and so Scots nobles and merchants and burghs would not have been over invested.
Sir Winston Churchill once said that ‘Of all the small nations of this earth, perhaps only the ancient Greeks surpass the Scots in their contribution to mankind.’
Because modern roads, the television, popularising the telephone, phone lines begets a telecommunication network which begets the internet which begets wireless communication which begets your smartphone...the very thing you read this on is made by the science built on scottish foundations about 100 years ago. Plus all Scotlands work in philosophy and the arts, our beginnings of abolishing slavery in British parliament and our outlook towards human rights.
England was large, but Spain's empire was larger in land mass, however not in population, (thanks to India) than England's empire ever was. Mongolia's empire was the whole of "Eurasia and East Asia".
***** Spain doesn't get to negotiate that. Aragon and Castile have a completely different relationship than Scotland and England. Scotland is technically willingly part of the UK and has the right to leave via referendum. Aragon and Castile aren't exactly a single country willingly. And now, really it'd be everyone but Scotland who is the separatist, having left the EU.
Scotland is a country. They would leave a sovereign union, not separate from their nation. Aragon and Castile are not countries. Anyway, Spain still would have no say over it.
Again misleading. Spain said would not negotiate with Scottish government re some sort of sep EU relationship while Scotland still part of UK. Did not say would not deal with Scotland if independent. When did Netherlands say they would veto an independent Scotland joining EU? Certain economic collapse of Scotland? Really?
Daniel It really depends on whether you bother to read eg The GERs reports and proper economists reports The notion that Scotland could not survive as an independent nation is laughable .Worse off maybe yes but there would then be restructuring.At present the UK economy geared up to make London the power house and the cash cow at the sake of other regions.Like Ireland if Scotland went independent it would probably be hard times initially and even mid to long term and then improve.I am sure all the same sneering condescending comments were made re Ireland being able to survive. Its a question of whether enough Scots want to risk the pain and difficulty.
"Also Scotland has given a lot the the UK," You are absolutely right Freddrick. Scotland was initially blackmailed and bullied into union but of course the stability created (though it also had its down side) enabled both countries to reap the rewards. Scotland through the centuries has more than paid its way in the empire in toil and blood. In the two World Wars for instance Scottish losses per head of population far outstripped that for the UK as a whole. The modern world is different though. Politically Scotland and England have somewhat drifted apart and some in Scotland see the UK gvt as no longer representative of them. So the people will decide their future. In truth I suspect it will be a No vote. However the point is that the UK state is a voluntary state and that principle has been held for some time now. There would be a good deal of haggling should Scotland leave but the idea that the rump UK would invade is silly. The other poster obviously does not believe in a union of partners - he yearns for an English empire! There is no real support for that attitude and in reality history teaches it doesn't work. The UK tried to hold on to Ireland against the will of the Irish and look what happened there. Scotland would be much harded to hold on to you in a similar scenario.
We all need to remember that there is no UK or Great Britain without Scotland. Great Britain is Scotland, England and Wales united, all this talk by the Scottish first minister about Great Britain going against Scotland interests means that Scotland is going against Scotland's interest. Logic... England, Wales and Scotland are better united, we've fought in countless wars together and England and Wales already recognise Scottish National Identity. Scottish Independence is a pointless separation of a great united island of the north. We all need to treat each other as equals instead of judging people based on some line someone drew on a map
Hyped_Rock It is not pointless if the current situation leaves you feeing disenfranchised. Which is the case for many Scots. In the future if there was a shared interest then of course they would work together if Scotland was independent - as partners! What's so bad about that?
Alun Palmer Except the so called English disenfranchisement is only in effect theoretical. I think Scottish votes only ever made any difference on one occassion. On the other hand a Tory gvt currently runs Scotland whilst Scotland votes for only 1 Tory MP. Hardly comparable. Likewise as far as the devolution thing goes the UK has always been a devolved state apart from when Stormont was suspended for a while. No-one ever moaned about a West Belfast Question. Seemingly English Tories only object to Scots having votes in Westminster. After all Ulster Unionists used to side with the Tories anyway. It is political shenanigans nothing to do with English disenfranchisement. Even during the period where Labour were the gvt in both Westminster and Holyrood it was still the Scots were disenfranchised. Scots votes made no difference at westmisnter but over 60 Sewel Motions were carried. That is where legisaltion which should be devolved was pushed through westmisnter instead.
WOW!!! Now, this is truely remarkable. In the neolitic era of youtube, Grey was already answering question that nobody asked, but apparently everybody wanted to know the answer.
At first, I thought I had left my Dwarf Fortress open, but then I realized that the music was just in the video. Nice video, and nice choice of song, CGP Grey!
Independence is NOT about republicanism. Nor indeed is it about Royalism, loyalism, socialism, communism, capitalism, corporatism, collectivism, utopianism, Islamism, Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism nor indeed nationalism. Independence is about democracy... the ability to choose ANY or NONE of the above! But underlining ALL of these possible choices is the fundamental security of our nation. And that choice is not related to party politics or religious doctrines... but it IS achieved successfully by only a few PROVEN mechanisms, and what the Scots need to be doing... today, tomorrow and for the coming two years, is learning, discussing, debating and defining how that will be achieved. And until Scots learn to engage the discussion constructively and absorb FULLY the many options available to them, they will end up condemning themselves to the destruction of their country and their nation... potentially to the point of being right back where they started.
I think the vote for independence IS about republicanism and nationalism, perhaps even a dash of utopianism, given that Scotland will plunge itself into all sorts of bureaucracy, rivalry, headscratching and distraction, in the name democracy, when almost all of the real social issues the country faces could be addressed now, within the current system. (Presumably they're waiting until after independence to unveil their secret array of miracle-cure policies)
Yawn... is that the best garbage you can muster, Thom? Even I can do better than that! Guess what... let's just allow the Scottish people to have their DEMOCRATIC say, hmmm?! And whilst England succumbs to Westminster's corporatist utopia... and social nightmare... the Scots will be getting on with life!
Jock Campbell "the Scots will be getting on with life" That's precisely my point. It wouldn't be a democratic move, at least initially, because even though Scotland would come under its own control, it would spend huge time and effort wrangling and arguing with its new rivals, instead of focusing on the needs and wants of its citizens; the true democratic bit of it.
Jock Campbell Like I said, the independence of Scotland would take the feeling of rivalry between England and Scotland from a state of nil to noticeable. If you actually think of real world issues.. such as fish and oil stocks, for instance. There would be a lot of bickering.
As an English woman i must say a huge thank you to scotland, as always they start the ball rolling on the best 'british' idea's whether that be in parliament or public ;)
Anglo-Saxons land in England. They conquer Cornwall. They try to conquer Scotland but fail. They try to conquer Wales but fail. They try again and win. Henry VIII unites England and Wales.
@BeastlyVoldemort - I’m not sure that’s needed given that the reason Wales joined the U.K. was because at the time it was considered a part of the Kingdom of England .
@@womanrespector7373 actually I was responding more to the comment from five months ago again I was trying to correct it for other people to see rather than the person who write who most likely won’t see this
It's sort of true, Great Britain is merely the geographical term for the both nations united together, I think CGP meant that Scotland joined the union of England (Wales) and Ireland to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
I blame the BBC. The BBC is the most bias organisation in this country and have a lot to answer for. Not only that but they HATE England. It is evident now with the Scottish referendum. Now that there is call for "English devolution", the BBC are egging on the idea of "regional assemblies". Now if the BBC weren't bias, they would be looking at all of the proposals on the table to answer England's devolution crisis. They'd be proposing the same as what has been granted to Scotland i.e. an English Parliament. But no, you won't hear that get a mention by the BBC, not ever. They're disgusting.
Flame thrower The shite we get taught at school is amazing, pure and utter propaganda. Really, the history lessons boil up hate and make the English look evil and concentrates to no extent on how Scotland was an utter shithole until it united with England. And minimum wage Scottish people blame that on England; they have to find something to blame their misfortunes on, and usually it's England. Jeez, Westminster isn't exactly perfect, what what the hell makes these people think that Alex Salmond will make everything better? Will a big fuckin' rainbow appear and Salmond, in a tutu, will fly to their house and sprinkle magical dust at them and suddenly they'll become rich and happy? Plus, the entire population of Scotland is actually lower than that of London, of course we're not being fucking prioritized!
Which is what I pointed out GB means more than one thing. It can mean the political unit (ie Scotland, England and Wales with their many islands) or it can mean the large island itself. The 1707 union did create a united kingdom of Great Britain but it was commonly called Great Britain. The more formal use of the UK came about with the union with Ireland.
Actually that played no part in the union; James VI and I was the first king of the two countries in 1603, the Act of Union that made the Kingdom of Great Britain didn't happen until 1707. From 1603 to 1707 the two countries were independent of each other and just shared a monarch.
if Scotland leaves Great Britain first of 1 Britain's tax money and economy would probably drop greatly and the country would go bankrupt.2 Scotland would have a hard time staying independent.
Are we suddenly back in the 1400's? The days where countries could just invade each other to take territory without argument are basically over. If England tried that shit, the international response wouldn't be pretty to say the least.
I'm a McDonald and this Campbell lad has the right idea, Scotland couldn't break away she'd be instantly bankrupt and what's left of the uk wouldn't be to happy. Scotland has it fine now and if it isn't broken don't fix it
ikeknights If I'm not mistaken, the Lion's share of it is owned by the British as a whole, not the Scottish. If Scotland broke off, they would lose access to most, if not all of the oil in the North Sea. I MIGHT be mistaken, so don't just take my word for it.
smudgethekat The "lion's share" of it is in Scottish territorial waters, so it's owned by Scotland Period. At the moment however, Westminster has sovereign authority over that territory... but a yes vote to independence means sovereignty being restored to Scotland's parliament... and the territory, and its assets, to Holyrood control.
Jock Campbell You've seen some of the excuses this country came up with to justify invading Iraq to take its oil. I don't think our government would have a problem with doing it again.
I'm mostly English and Scotch-Irish and I still don't get the whole Scots' disdain for England that lasts to this day. I mean, yes, I know about the story of William Wallace and the events during that timeframe and all but dude, that was hundreds of years ago, move on and if it wasn't for English money (as pointed out in this video) Scotland would've been nothing. Of all the hatreds to have (aside from racism and anti-Semitism) why that? It makes no freaking sense. Makes you wonder if Sicily feels the same about Italy itself even though it's been apart of Italy even before rise of the Roman Empire.
the disdain for england is not what you think its more specific than that its for the conservative party.The conservative party is mainly an english party which often gets an overall majority to rule the UK.The other major party is labour which gets support from all over the UK including scotland .The conservative party has only MP out 60 or 70 from scotland.So if you have a conservative government scotland has a government it didn't vote for so its really about democracy.Traditionally labour was the biggest party in scotland,but now top spot has been taken over by the Scottish National party,so even if labour get into power they will not have the support of the majority of scotland either.I am not scottish,but this does seem to be the crux of it all.They are other issues like oil revenues and how they are distributed.Its not really about history or Culture,because the scots don't have one.There is scottish highland culture alright ,but the rest of the country no.
***** I am Scottish and have no disdain for England or anyone who is English - in fact I am a quarter English and my girlfriend is English. What this video doesn't mention is the fact that the reason for the union wasn't just down to the funding of Scotland but also the bribing of the Scottish nobility by the already unified monarchy (who wanted its parliaments to join together). Again it had nothing to do with English people, but self-interested British monarchy and Scottish nobility. I did vote yes, but for political reasons - I am of the opinion that our Social Policy would be better run as a smaller and more social-democratic parliament, and that this requires independent tax raising etc. Some unfortunately cling to bigotry and identity - I do understand being proud to be Scottish but that shouldn't extent to hatred of the English (I have always felt British). It was a very long time ago yes, but the retaining of traditions, culture, political control over education and law etc, and even to an extent language has meant the feeling that Scotland should stand on its own has continued. The union was exactly that - a union. Scotland and England stayed as their own entities. The invasion of Wales and the turning it into a part of England has still meant their identity is somewhat less profound. As Joseph points out, the differing of political traditions has led to a conservatism being seen as an English ideal (mainly down to Thatcher I would say (and the same reason the North of England and Wales have disdain for the South East)). Also with the rightward movement of Labour, the SNP are now seen to represent the Social Democratic traditions of Scotland (which really aren't as profound or different to that many in England have to be honest). These divisions - cultural and political- have been stoked by the devolution of powers to Scotland, a Scottish Government who tries its best to exaggerate and do things differently to England, and a feeling that their policies have been successful. The modern approach to politics in Scotland has also led to some disdain towards the old-fashioned practices of Westminster. Both Scotland and England have aided and taken from one and other many times over the long and interesting history of Britain. To me, any hatred of England or the English is ignorant. If independence is really wanted, it should be on the basis of wanting to be self-sufficient, a feeling that it would benefit us, or politics based. Identity of course can play a role in this, but to hate people from, or to hate a country is bad. Importantly I will say that the majority in Scotland do not have disdain for England. There is also a perception that the English have disdain for Scotland - which I find to be widely untrue also.
Joseph Boland That disdain for the conservatives is not just felt in scotland its northern england aswell. Tories dont get voted for in liverpool or manchester or any of the other major cities in the north. Its the south east that vote for them.
There were numerous smaller kingdoms in Britain in the first millenium. Gradually through merging and conquest the national states called Scotland and England emerged. Wales hadn't quite developed as that to the same extent when it was conquered by England. However it had developed enough to hold on to its national identity. So even though legally it became part of the English kingdom itself it never did popularly and in the 20thC it was again officually recognised that it was seperate
People are all freaking about about what Scotland's secession would mean for the UK economy. Screw that! We all know what the real threat to our society is! Potentially being forced to redesign the Union Jack! Imagine the vexillological disaster!
According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation an Development or OECD the UK is the 16the wealthiest country in the world, it projects, using Westminster governments projections by the way, that an independent Scotland would be 6th. There is no comprehensible way to argue that Scotland would be worse off if it becomes independent, make the right choice my fellow Scots!
Who is this silly little boy below "Aidan Boyles"? "I'm even Scots-English for Her Majesty's sake!" Moron. Scotland will be independent but will REMAIN in the Union of Crowns, so HM will remain our monarch.
downfall1996 www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Economy/GERS/GERS2014xls GERS is the study that all sides take their figures from in terms of economics, although you could have just Googled it yourself.
GERS is crap. It really doesn't give any sense of what an independent Scotland's wealth would be. GERS only portrays the here and now under the union and with the vast majority of Scottish-generated revenues hidden from us. Such as filling station receipts for petrol & diesel going to Tesco, Asda and Morrisons... whose head offices are in England, so all revenue receipts are allocated to those (English) corporate offices. There are many many examples of this kind of back-door robbery going on and GERS simply fails to register them. Independent studies however, have revealed the diversity and earnings potential of Scottish operations. It is extremely flippant to cite London as some kind of economic powerhouse and that being disconnected from it is somehow a loss. In fact the opposite is true... Scotland will be able to keep the revenues it generates FROM London... so London won't be nearly as big and powerful as it has been on the back of others' (especially Scotland's) wealth creation!
It is sad. Wales was conquered well before the union of the crowns and so didn't really have time to form it's own national identity. In fact, Wales was never even a kingdom...but rather a collection of kingdoms such as Gwynedd, Powys, Yns Mon etc.
Oh yes. The English were so kind. When the Scots tried to find land elsewhere like their neighbor & other countries, instead of the English helping them (Like w/ every other country they stole or attained by ruthless means) they started a trade war to screw them over even more. Nowhere in any of this did England help Scotland because of their kindness or to benefit Scotland. And, to this day, they still have the nerve to think they have a right to Scotland & it's land and people. England is just like a welfare program. Pretend to help you, give you just enough to barely survive. And makes you dependent upon them.
1. this was a different time where england/scotland were seperate nations and not allies. 2. Why should england (or any other nation) help a rival gain power that they could use against them in the future. 3. Scotland and england agreed to a union under british rule not english rule 4. It wasn't just england that created a trade war it was most european nations. 5. Scotland did well from British (not english) rule, they not had a say in global polotics and the empire where as before they were excluded.
James Glover Aye, don't forget that many European countries started trade wars against the United kingdom- but at that point, our alliance with Portugal, massive success on the waves, and also Russia's general distrust of West Europeans, meant that we were able to bypass this without too much trouble. Scotland wouldn't have been able to do this on their own.
Yeah, and before you bring up Hungary and the Poles or the UK and France, those were done in national interest as well. The enemies of Poland would have been quite a significant threat to the Magyars if they hadn't acted, and the Poles (now allies) were much friendlier to the Magyars. It was a politically strategic move, and a very good idea.
The video suggests the Scottish people "voted" to join in union with the English. That is like Mr Obama sitting around a table in the White House with a few democrats and then imposing a law which all of the US had to live by which in turn would be defined as the American people voted for it historically.The Scottish people were denied a vote as most of the people globally and in Scotland were denied the privilege of voting during this period. We were sold out by a bankrupt elite (its happening again since the global banking crisis) of the Scottish nobility who turned their desperate situation into one of advantage by accepting bribes in order to form a union. As Scots we resent the union not because we have any ill feeling for the English per say but because we are and have been for centuries prior to union a sovereign nation. What we want is a return to our previous nation state like all the other colonies of England have achieved. You may say 'where would that leave you?',well disregarding the decades worth of oil revenue that has been stolen by London,the exports that have been classified as English due to their port of export,(most of Scotland's internationally owned whiskey industry is classified as English exports) our world beating position as innovators and inventors,our wind and other green energy potential,fishing,farming and tourism I reckon we will manage to sustain a small population in a large landmass.
one of myroommates is a history major and we have this drinking game for the history heavy episodes everytime he thoughtfully strokes his hipster beard and pauses the video to explain in more depth....we all drink as much as we can until he shuts up
That was the first stage, known as the Union of the Crowns in 1603. Scotland and England now had the same king, but different parliaments and governments, much like Australia, Canada etc today. The Union of the Parliaments in 1707 is what this video refers to.
I am an American and this happens a lot. With a lot of different nationality's living here people have identity's issues so you will often hear "I'm Irish" "I'm Russian" "I'm Polish" even though there passports, and citizenship may disagree. Its unfortunate :(
CGP Grey, could you make a video explaining, briefly, the reasons Scotland want independence from the Union? and maybe a small list of pros and cons? I trust only you to make a fully impartial summary. many thanks!
This is incredibly simplistic and doesn't really explain much about how Scotland joined England. King William took most of the blame for the failure of the colony (rightly so) and was very unpopular in Scotland. Although £400,000 was pledged, it was never actually all given. Granted it was a huge blow to Scotland's economy but it did not mean a complete collapse of the Scottish economy.
