Quote Originally Posted by Troglodyte View Post
Poor English... They get blamed for everything.

Everything that happened in Scottish domestic policy prior to 1603 (and prior to the Union in 1707) was carried out by Scots under the rule of their own Stewart monarchy - so the internecine sqabbling of the clans and the Scottish monarchy, their genocidal activities and proscription of specific clans (think Macgregor), and massacres like those of Glencoe were a Scot-on-Scot action.

The English (mostly because the Monarch resided in London after 1603) are generally, and conveniently, seen as the perpetrators of the Glencoe massacre and the later Clearances, but the English had no part in either. Orders for the Glencoe killings were signed by a Stewart dynasty monarch, and the Clearances were carried out by the Highland proprietors (clan chiefs) and their willing Lowland Scot (most seem to have been from the Borders) agents.

Outrage at both was openly expressed in England, with enquiries into Glencoe being called for by the English, which was resisted by Scots, and the English demanding the Clearances be halted. A good indication of how the Scots viewed the English around 1600 is expressed in the Basilikon Doron - James VI's how-to-be-a-king guide to his son, Charles, (who messed things up like few kings have ever done) - makes special mention of the English sense for fair-play and natural justice. Not the Scots' nationalistic view, in other words.

There has been no English (ie Anglo-Saxon) king since 1066, and the English have been subject to minority rule for the best part of 1,000 years - ruled by French, Welsh, Scots and German monarchs since that date. It seems to add insult to injury by blaming them for Scots' mistreatment of each other also.

But blaming others for your own faults and wrong-doing has always soothed injured pride and eased the conscience, so cultivating the English bugbear image will always serve Scotland's needs. Heigh-ho...
Apologies from me are due, I think. My knowledge of Scottish history is meager. Yes, I took two semesters of British (primarily English) history in my sophomore year of college, but memories dim 6 decades on…

My point, however, was based on the stories told by the exhibits I visited at Culloden and the Edinburgh Castle museum, from which I have fresher memories. At Culloden, it was made clear that some Clans and lowlanders were participants in British Army uniforms, but I think it was NOT suggested that many Scots in the British Parliament favored the Articles of Proscription. And (admittedly from a visit now more than 2 decades ago) I came away from the Edinburgh Castle Museum with a similar opinion. Do you (or others) feel I misrepresented the story its exhibits tell to someone not already knowledgeable about Scottish history?

Of course, your final paragraphs can be read as saying you agree with me about those exhibits. And, the longest line I encountered at the Edinburgh Castle in summer of 2023 was the wait to glance at the Stone of Scone…

What's happening here in the US demonstrates just how easily such bias can be spliced or bludgeoned into remembering our past. One of our greatest historical monuments (The Smithsonian Institute) is in the process of submitting to a forced and fictitious retelling the history of our (previously) darkest time, expunging memories of what our Civil War was really about (people entitled to OWN other people),and resurrecting fame for Confederate Generals. Truth is a precious commodity whose value is too often under-rated.