Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Should Scotland go independent?

[video:youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=IN61UrW5qUo[/video]

Battles had not been fought on English soil for 100 years prior to the uprising of '45. The Jacobite army did indeed win two (IIRC) battles on their way south when the hastily assembled British forces broke and ran in the face of charging highlanders.

What did NOT happen was the anticipated massive upwelling of popular support from the English population (recall that even in the Highlands, perhaps an actual majority of Highlanders belonged to clans at odds with those in the Jacobite ranks).

The Highland Army may have well marched virtually unopposed into London, but not likely would this entirely alien bunch of non English-speaking tribesmen have been able to hold it for any length of time.

When in due time the English government DID respond with a trained and disciplined army that would stand and fire coordinated volleys in the face of a highland charge the highlanders were overwhelmingly defeated: Pretty much why no modern armies of that era relied on edged weapons as their primary infantry offensive tool, the highlanders brung broadswords and axes to a gunfight.

Even had the attempted surprise attack on the British camp the night before Culloden succeeding in routing the British (as it likely would have), the highlanders were doomed anyway.

Not to mention the presence of those clans who came down on the British side.

Birdwatcher

If the Highlanders had marched into London and if the French had sailed and proved support things would have been very different. But none of the "ifs" happened and we all know how things worked out.

You are right though the Highlanders did bring a knife to a gun fight.

Hard to overstate how alien and savage the kilted highlanders appeared to the regular English of that time. The highlanders were the product of a feudal system quite apart from mainstream Western civilization in a tribal society that had remained essentially intact in most particulars since before Roman times.

How well the 600,000 plus Londoners of 1745 would have tolerated about 5,000 savage highlanders in their midst is open to question. I'm not sure there were ever 600,000 highlanders at any time in their history.

After Culloden of course the highlanders were persecuted about like wolves, to once and for all end their forays from the remote highlands and open up those places for more profitable endeavors.

The romance with and fictionalization of all things Scottish came much later.

Worth noting in the context of this debate that Scottish Highlanders and their descendants living in the American colonies almost to a man came down on the British side during our own revolutionary war.

Birdwatcher

Yup, Culloden broke the back of the feudal clan system for good. Those Highlanders not killed, shipped to the American colonies, formed the shock troops for the British government.

When the Highlanders fought in the Afghan campaigns the Gurkhas were assigned to the Highland regiments. Because the Gurkhas fought wild like the Highlanders and had a charge very similar to the Highland charge the Gurkhas were inducted as honorary members of the Highland regiments. Hence, the reason at the military tattoos at Edinburgh castle one will see Gurkha pipes and drums.

I have a book on the history of the military Scottish regiments with plenty of B&W pictures of the time period with Scottish military regiments and Gurkha regiments together.

So you're okay living under tyranny because division causes weakness?

I'd rather be weak than be subjugated to a tyrannical govt. Fahq Britain.

Of course the Scots should be independent of the Limey bastids if that's what they wish.

The Irish booted their dumbasses out of their country and don't seem to be regretting it. The Guinness and Jameson's still flows out of the country.

In this case if I were Scottish, given the sort of government independence would bring, home rule would seem by far the greater tyranny.

Better turn in them dangerous air rifles, disband those unfair elitist estates, end the barbaric practice of blood sports, and probably get around to banning pointy kitchen knives in Glasgow while expanding the welfare state even further.

If independence DOES pass its gonna be by a close vote, meaning nearly half the residents of Scotland will feel about like I would, but outvoted by those most desirous of wealth redistribution and free stuff, about like the way Obama got reelected.

I'm curious now as to what proportion of the Scottish population is rural vs. big city.



Tyrannical government? ENGLAND? Hard to think of a single instance since 1914, and that was 100 years ago.

Note they are not standing in the way of Scotland leaving, probably financing the balloting in fact. Pretty much the exact same way the whole Empire disintegrated; countries ironically being allowed to vote themselves out according to the just rule of applied British legal principles.

The only place most English would likely just as soon see let go, Northern Ireland, ain't ever going to leave on account of the Ulster Prods would face political oblivion in a Catholic majority united Ireland. Therefore England will be compelled to continue to spend blood and treasure propping up the place indefinitely.



What? The IRA won a military victory? Against England?

Pretty much exactly like the American Revolution there was always tremendous sympathy among a large proportion of the English public re: the innate justice of the Irish cause. Even more so in the case of Ireland because all they HAD was terrorism, never being remotely strong enough militarily to defeat the British in open battle.

The same moral forces that disintegrated the rest of the Empire also allowed Ireland independence.

As to the nature of the IRA at that time and since, I'll be charitable and state that difficult times call for difficult measures, but try being a Catholic dissenter in the Bogside of the 70's (watch out for your kneecaps; drills and all that ) and what ever DID happen to Michael Collins anyway?

The way the English have set it up, I dunno that there's any downside to being an Irish citizen living in England, I'm pretty sure that you still get free medical care and all the other perks regular Brits get, and maybe even indefinite residency/working privileges I dunno.

Meanwhile the Republic of Ireland continues to enjoy the same de-facto protection of the British military, same way it has since independence despite opting out of fighting against the unprecedented rise of Nazi tyranny 60 years ago (tho' more than a few of her sons and grandsons joined Allied units in that struggle, my own father and his brothers for example).

If not for British sacrifices and resolve, Ireland, like the rest of a politically fractured and disjoint British Isles likely would have been, would have been chafing against GERMAN rule at some point.

...but yes, as you point out, tho' the rest of the Irish economy might be in the tank just now, Guinness still flows like water out of Dublin, and fortunately, Irish citizens can still freely seek employment in England and elsewhere

Birdwatcher

So far the winner for the most ignorant post on this thread. "Tyrannical gov't?, really? The Irish booted their "dumbasses" out of Ireland? Really?

I had a Scot in my office yesterday and we were talking about this. Apparently one if the driving forces behind this is the unchecked immigration in the UK from Muslim countries and Eastern Europe. For obvious reasons you won't see that talked up in the press.

The Scots have this funny idea of Scotland for Scots and they don't want to become a minority in their own country to the Muzzies. They see the way the train is going g in the UK and they want to get off at the next stop before it is too late.

You'll see similar movements here for the same reasons soon enough.

The Scottish National Party says that one of its main policy's is to increase the work force. They have outlined three proposals one of which is to *increase* immigration!

And it will be Scots making those decisions, not some English asshats in Whitehall.

So you ok with California allowing more Mexicans in intead of some asshats in DC?

Nothing wrong with increasing immigration as long as the immigrants can assimilate into Scotland's Gaelic culture which generally means white. No Muslim on earth can assimilate into any white culture especially Gaelic culture.

I go to a fair number of feiseanna, most competitors are white of Gaelic culture, usually of the Irish persuasion, a few are black and Asians but I've yet to see a single Muslim at any of these.

Muslims are the dark side of the Force.

I don't give a flying frick. Should California ask to secede, I'm sure anyone with half a brain would jump all over that.

But then again, I'm not a statist Johnny Come Lately.

If California was it's own sovereign republic absolutely.

Point I am making is that many people hold a position on the issue but don't know actually know what the various political parties are proposing..I was fairly shocked my self when I read that particular policy, but as they say the devil is in the detail.
And as for �asshats in London making the decisions � a) there is already a Scottish Parliament with a wide degree of powers and b) Scottish MPs sit in the British Parliament to represent the views of their constituents so we are a world away from �No taxation with out representation� as was the case a few hundred years ago�

From what you are describing it does not sound like it's in the average Scot's best interest to separate. It sounds more and more like the National Party is not heading in the right direction.

Ann Coulter has asked why we can't just give California back to Mexico?

As we learned and as was the case about 150 years ago, if you are in the minority and those asshats are not, your "representation" is not worth a damn.

Well, that never stopped the average American from explaining to a British gentleman why the Scottish people are doing something.