James VI's Britain

re:Dan, London.
I agree, I think we're a TERRIBLE tax burden to you poor inhabitants in the southern half of this island.
Which is why I think you should support English independence.
Why do you use your votes to keep breathing life into the Westminster's Boys Club and their jet-set lifestyles funded, in large, by the expenses system paid for by the TAX PAYERS of the "whole island" not just England Dan. Stop wasting your votes on Labour (New or Old), Conservative or Liberal.
A new party has just been registered with the electoral commission called the One England Party, they're England's equivalent of the SNP in Scotland.
I'm very impressed with them, they are campaigning for the reconvening of England's parliament, they know what they're about, they DO NOT tolerate ANY form of racism! Go visit their page, can't recall the proper address but shouldn't be too hard to find. They're on Facebook aswell, look for One England. All the best.

All you Scots should take note, if it wasn't for James VI King of the Scots, you would'nt have anything to complain about, we would of probably, become a republic and still ruled the Americas, anyway most of us English would gladly be independent of Scotland, as you are such a tax burden on our economy.

I don't care if it was a Scottish invension or not, the United Kingdom was a great power at one time

I agree I do not see Great Britain (Most arrogant name for a country anyway, Imagine it was called Amazing Australia or Fantastic Germany) as a country. GB is an island with three countries on it England, Scotland and Wales and along with Northern Ireland, which is on Ireland, they make up the sovereign state 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'

Now 9.8 times out of 10 Sovereign States are Countries (France, Germany etc) and because of this the UK is often mistaken as one and it's not really something Westminster has tried to shake off. Britain, The UK and England generally are used in the same way. English=British.

I personally believe it is England that is loosing out though and I really believe that they should have an English parliament with no Scots in it and an English 1st minister. They should have a keen sense of English identity separate from the British one.

Re the title of the debate "Was the creation of Great Britain a Scottish invention?", there is no such country as Great Britain. The Union flag was invented in response to a request by James VI to an adviser for a flag to represent his "United Kingdoms". As a Post Script I for one am pleased that Scotland once again has a Parliament, ineffectual as it is, as after hundreds of years of strife to forge a Nation recognized by the rest of Europe we are in danger of becoming a historical footnote.

once again... the world according to ross and jackson.England=bad,Scotland= fair to moderate.Who are the Good Guys?
Truth be told, none.All self seeking ,glory hungry criminals.BUT... if we were there....what would WE have done???

To Andrew in Cumbria,

Re Elizabeth Tudor (1st of what?). As I understand it, she became a vicious old grumpy tyrant, who refused to nominate any successor AT ALL. Her politicains, and all the world, knew that James Stewart would succeed, as he was the only realistic candidate there was! The English had already told James VI that they would have him as King. Elizabeth Tudor died vain and arrogant to the end. Just like her Dad!

I have to say that I agree on your major points... I guess that what separates Scotland from England is the fact that the Picts remained in Scotland and were uninfluenced by the Roman culture, similarly with the Normans and even some Viking colonization. It's a shame that Scotland was never unified earlier on-perhaps if the Lowlanders and the Highlanders had stopped fighting they could have put a mind to taking England! But I guess that that is what started the battle of Culloden... And right after Scotland is retaken by England. Only too convenient for the British empire, not that I disapprove of it...

Andrew, Cumbria

Re the Highlands. The Stewarts wanted an end to the Highland Clan culture and had pursued it throughout their tenancy of the Crown as it was a threat to their status and also weakened their grip as they could not count on the support of the Chiefs.

What about Elizabeth I, what was her role in choosing James VI as her successor? Was this not perhaps the last great act of a great Prince? Which should have led to peace in our island, had the Stuarts not pursued the rights of Kings too far.
Did she have a choice?
Was it true that James' desire to be king of England took no account of the needs and desires of Scotland and the Scottish? Did he care?
Was this the first sign of the Stuart blindness for power, which would lead to their ultimate downfall and the destruction of the Highlands?
Can I also add that this was a great History which somewhat embarrassingly taught me more about the history of Scotland than I'd ever thought to ask.

Hi all,

Was wondering if this series is now finished or if there are plans to conclude it in two parts (like Scharma's "History of Britain"). I hope there are more episodes because although the programme has documented the beginning of the end of Scottish independence there are still plenty of Scottish history episodes that could be featured. Bonnie Prince Charlie must be worthy of a mention, as must the road to the creation of the new Scottish Parliament.
I would also be interested to watch an episode on Scotland's Golden Age, when Scots invented everything.Was wondering as well if the programme was maybe a bit too obsessed with England? Would be interested to know more about Scottish-Irish relations over the years. This is surely significant as millions of Scots class themselves as Scots-Irish.

Overall, an excellent show and it was nice to learn more about Scottish history than I learned in school (ie Mary QoS and that's about it).

I hope the series continues soon.

Thanks Tom. The wee details you know of that era, indeed most eras, are cracking. Love tae hear all the wee surrounding facts. It seems to add to the parts of the picture that shouldnt be glided over as these 'wee' things when taken in another context seem to add a new slant to the picture and also provokes the thoughts that carry you to a different perception & make you feel as if you 'understand' a bit more. You're
in reciept of a good deal of knowledge of this country's past which I envy of you. Ta mate.

Hi Brian, Part II....

So, Longshanks knew, and was very friendly with, the King of Scotland, but also including the top families. Yes, he knighted The Bruce. Many sources claim the Bruce was a favorite of Longshanks. Many sources, not always taken as fact, also claim The Bruce knighted Sir William Wallace. We just don't know. What we do know is that there was no reason whatsoever for anyone in Scotland, after the death of King Alexander in 1286, to suppose that Longshanks would go on and do what he did. All his life to that point, he had been a friend to Scotland.

Hi Brian, good to hear from you.

Yeah, the royal families of England and Scotland were very close. From the time of King David, whose own sister was Queen of England, to the time of King Alexander II and III, the House of Normandy, the Plantagenets, the House of Canmore, were all inter married. Longshanks' Aunty Joan was married to King Alexander II. His son, King Alexander III was married to Queen Margaret, Longshanks' sister. This was a long and peaceful period in the history of Scotland/England. More in next post.

To Mark in Glasgow,

Your ref to the 'disturbance' re prayers books. Talk about underselling the history! You're referring to the national uprising of the National Covenant. Most of Scotland went mental at King Charles's attempt to impose Church of England practises upon the people of Scotland. This kicked off war, and the period of time of 'The Covenanters', still a revered era in our history for many peolpe.

Alison, Dundee. Aye good point Alison, Even though there's no evidence to suggest anyone in particular cared not whether they were governed at home or by their European neighbour I think it'd be daft to imagine that there weren't folk that quietly wished this affair to be done (one way or another) allowing them to start making themselves a few quid again. I guess when it comes down to puttin a loaf on yir table & patriotism it's no contest. Even if your country's being manipulated & threatened. Sad chapter.

Mark, G-gow. Aye you're on the ball with the prayer book thing mate, different disturbance to the widespread riots of the union but I can vaguely remember reading what you're talking about. I think they tried to press their Church of England ways on Scotlands presbyterian church or something wasnt it? Can you tell me what the differences are between Scotland's Joe Average protestant church & the Wee Free Church of Scotland mate? Eng's church seems a lot more Catholic with the communions etc' dont you think?

I think I may have an answer to the question. King William was embroiled in a war with France which he was determined to win and this was proving costly to Scottish trade. When combined with the failure of the Darien expedition to establish a Scottish colony in South America and the refusal of the English parliament to allow Scots to trade with the English colonies the Scottish parliament and heads of trades were becoming agitated. In addition the English had accepted the House of Hanover but Scotland had not, and the Scottish parliament was also threatening to support a separate succession which led to the English threatening to block free trade between Sotland and England. So the common people could be the 'mood of the tradespeople'.

Mark, Glasgow.
I answered before seeing you had a second piece to add. I'm with you there mate! I don't have a clue who these 'people' are either bud.

It was my understanding that the rioting was because of Charles introduction of a modified version of the English 'Book of Common Prayer'. This was because a group of Scottish bishops had devised the book to replace the 'Book of Common Order' used by the Presbyterian Kirk since the reformation. When it was used for the first time it sparked commotion which lead to organised protest and rioting that spread across Scotland???????

Mark G-gow. Hi Mark, re: your research of the union of p-ments. You do know there was no vote for the people & no existing census to tell how they felt, however they recorded their feelings that can be easily found in ANY book relating to 1706/07, if that fellow R Riat touches on the ethos in Sco surrounding the union of p-ments he should be able to confirm the widespread & sustained rioting that took place due to the union. And be in reciept of the nickname the people had for the leading man FOR the union?

Mark G-gow. Hi Mark, re: your research of the union of p-ments. You do know there was no vote for the people & no existing census to tell how they felt, however they recorded their feelings that can be easily found in ANY book relating to 1706/07, if that fellow R Riat touches on the ethos in Sco surrounding the union of p-ments he should be able to confirm the widespread & sustained rioting that took place due to the union. And be in reciept of the nickname the people had for the leading man FOR the union?

Sorry, my last post was too long and I cropped it but not very well. What I ment to say was that the authors of the books concluded that the pre-union parliament agreed to the union based on the wishes of the common people and not the crowns decision, who these 'common people' were I do not actually know.

This topic has really got me fired up and i've been attempting some resaerch of my own. Reading 'Parliaments of Scotland' by R Riat (1928) about the pre-union Scottish parliament. We know that the Scottish parliament had been portrayed as a constitutionally defective body. With many saying that it usually acted as a rubber stamp for royal decisions. However, reading this book and following it with a couple upto date books on the history of the union show that it played an active role in Scottish affairs and could be a thorn in the side of the Scottish crown. However, many authors state that the common people of Scotland were in favour of the union.

Tom Jackson, Edinburgh.
Quick question Tom to see if you can clarify or bring back something I've became oblivious to. The Bruce knighted Wallace didn't he? But was it Plantaganet that knighted The Bruce? I know I shouldn't be surprised by this as before the outbreak of trouble the Scots & English royals were closely related & regularly dined along with the other nobility- the Bruces, Balliols etc' done their jousts, hunted and so on. It seems alien to imagine this after all the conflict don't it. Ta mate.