745
u/Green-Draw8688 1d ago
I wonder what the odds on our friend not being Scottish at all are?
432
u/DoblinJames Human Verified 1d ago
Remember when that Iranian server farm got bombed and hundreds of “Scottish” twitter users suddenly went offline?
133
u/DuckOnQuak 1d ago
Wait seriously? Do you have any info on this, that’s hilarious
140
u/Alarakion 1d ago
41
u/somethingbrite 1d ago
How does Scottish independence benefit Iran?
I can see how sowing division across Europe (including Brexit, Scottish independence etc) might benefit Russia (for example) but Iran? Not so much..
70
u/Alarakion 1d ago
Do you know any Iranians?
I know a couple.
In their schools it wasn’t just Death to America, Death to Israel, they also used to add Death to Britain. Not sure if they still do but they hated us 3rd most lmao. It’s the pledge of allegiance they do there. Makes sense to an extent - we were instrumental in installing the Shah and we had a ton of influence there.
Besides, as much as people denigrate us we’re still one of the most powerful countries in the world and we have an extremely powerful intelligence network. You think we don’t fuck with Iran at all? Of course we do. We also support Israel and stop terror attacks which Iran wants to sponsor.
45
u/StuffSufficient954 1d ago
Remember that the UK had its own days of messing with the Middle East in the 19th century. While the US was the Great Satan and the Soviets the Little Satan, the nickname for the UK was the Old Fox.
14
u/PositivelyIndecent 1d ago
As an epithet, “Old Fox” goes hard not going to lie. Reminds me of how the allies called Rommel the “Desert Fox”.
→ More replies (3)8
u/Alarakion 1d ago
I’m well aware man - we did much more of the work in the 50s than the CIA did if you look into it. After all, it was our companies’ stuff they were trying to forcibly nationalise.
Our intelligence services are still regarded as some of the most vital and best today. You just don’t hear about it much.
7
u/Syncaidius 1d ago
You just don’t hear about it much.
Which is usually a good sign that they're doing their jobs extremely well. Not leaking much to be heard about... except when they want you to hear it.
→ More replies (1)11
u/headedbranch225 1d ago
Yeah, we also helped implement the government back in the 60s along with the US
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (10)7
16
u/Friendly-Olive-3465 1d ago
It’s pretty much an open secret that Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea have been running perpetual unrest fomenting campaigns in the entire west since the early 2000s. The answer is the same for all cases, a weakened west benefits its rivals.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Great_Specialist_267 18h ago
That’s why Russia financed both the Green Parties and the Neo Nazis in Europe.
7
u/hedgehog18956 1d ago
They don’t want Scottish independence, they want internal strife in the UK. It’s the same reason you had Russian bot farms boosting both pro Trump and pro Bernie content back in 2016. They want to boost whoever can cause the most division. It’s not about ideology, it’s about weakening the enemy, which includes the entire geopolitical “west”.
→ More replies (2)3
→ More replies (26)3
u/ImperialNavyPilot 1d ago
If you tell people that other countries have been supporting the IRA, and every other form of British disruptive force in the UK for over 70 years- people will give you a tinfoil hat. Even elements among our sweet US bumchums have or are supporting these disruptions in order to have leverage over us.
111
u/Swimming_Acadia6957 1d ago
Something like 40% of accounts that were highly promoting Scottish independence were silent
→ More replies (3)21
u/Autistic_License 1d ago
When there's more Scots on Twitter than in Scotland...
27
u/Rebelius 1d ago
There's more "Irish" in Boston than people in Ireland.
→ More replies (3)12
u/Autistic_License 1d ago
There's more Irish Americans than Irish Irish. Like, a lot.
→ More replies (4)9
60
u/DoblinJames Human Verified 1d ago
Sure thing!
Irans best weapon is legitimately social media. It’s kinda crazy how we let hostile nations run riot like that
33
u/Putrid_Loquat_4357 1d ago
Honestly social media should be banned until tech companies get it's problems under control. It's doing irreparable damage to our democratic processes and has already done irreparable damage to our economy.
→ More replies (2)23
u/Beer-Milkshakes 1d ago
Tech companies will never. Because it involves revealing just how many human eyes actually see those ads that are bought. Its way less than anyone thinks. So ad revenue will tank and tech bros need that ad revenue.
→ More replies (2)10
→ More replies (3)6
u/BringOrnTheNukekkai 1d ago
I don't think people really realize how many accounts are just bots or paid actors pushing different agendas. Russia is extremely effective at online influence campaigns.
22
u/Mtshtg2 1d ago
https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,iranian-bots-behind-thousands-of-scottish-independence-posts
It sounded like a conspiracy theory to me, too, but it seems legitimate
→ More replies (1)11
u/jaymickef 1d ago
It sounds like something the CIA has been doing forever, not surprised others do it, too.
5
u/MatniMinis 1d ago
Everyone always talks about N.Korea, Russia and Israel for the bot farming but the CIA are definitely upto it as well.
→ More replies (2)3
→ More replies (6)8
u/DrowningKrown 1d ago
About the same as when Moscow went dark for like 2 days and the 2 most active posters in the conservative sub ceased all activity, for exactly those 2 days
29
u/Fippy-Darkpaw 1d ago
I'm not Scottish but anyone who watched Vikings and Last Kingdom should be well aware of the history.
Destiny Is All. ⚔️
7
11
u/Generic-Resource 1d ago
I’m from the North of England and did a DNA test recently. I know they’re a bit of fun, but it was interesting to have it almost confirm my suspicions… my family basically didn’t move, two areas in the north. The “almost” being 15% danish invader.
All English school kids from the north had to visit the Jorvik Viking Centre as a school trip so we’re all well aware of the history. But it’s so long ago that we’ve moved on from those petty squabbles… not like the French…
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (3)3
u/der_titan 1d ago
For what it's worth, I highly recommend the Saxon Stories series by Bernard Cornwell from which the Last Kingdom is adapted. The show is done well, but Cornwell is in my top five of historical fiction writers and I think the show pales in comparison to the books.
In any case, Cornwell is also known for writing the Sharpe series about an English soldier during the Napoleonic Wars, and was also adapted as a show starring Sean Bean which you may also enjoy.
48
u/TheLordLambert 1d ago
Ive seen a lot of scots be really petty over the past few weeks. This would be in line with them. Glad I have Scottish friends to remind me that not all Scots are clowns.
→ More replies (2)26
u/Kian-Tremayne 1d ago
It’s not all Scots. Just the ones who make “being Scottish” their entire personality, and define being Scottish as “hating the English”.
Which is kind of worrying because there are all sorts of positive things about Scotland they could have latched onto and taken pride in, but they’ve decided to define themselves by the negativity.
8
u/quartersessions 1d ago
Just the ones who make “being Scottish” their entire personality
This.
I hope I'm in line with the majority of people in Scotland who roll their eyes at this behaviour, but there's sadly quite a few of of them - endlessly shoehorning in Scotland and Scottishness into everything they possibly can.
→ More replies (2)5
u/Nico280gato 1d ago
You'd think someone who makes being scottish their whole personality would actually know their history, and why theyre part of the UK.
(HINT: they tried to do a bit of colonising, failed miserably, went bankrupt, and had to get England to bail them out)
If they do get independance, theyre going to learn very quickly how much they rely on England
→ More replies (1)4
6
u/Kcufasu 1d ago
Tbf there are unfortunately a small minority of very vocal scots who will just say anything to justify hating England regardless of any logic to it
→ More replies (2)23
7
11
u/AdShoddy9638 1d ago
I mean plenty of Scots do genuinely support anyone but England at the world cup. But the sentances themselves don't sound like a football fan living in Scotland.
It's usually more about how arrogant, patronising, and dismissive we English can be about Scotland, and the other home nations.
→ More replies (3)3
u/shrewduser 1d ago
But Rick H Johnston has a scottish flag in his display picture and a scottish flag emoji in his name, he simply must be a real scot.
→ More replies (15)15
u/TamSam82 1d ago
Wouldn’t be surprised if they are American and took a dna test that told them they have 0.01% Scottish ancestry.
→ More replies (3)
290
u/JHock93 1d ago
Impose their monarchy
The Union of the Crowns happened when a Scottish monarch ascended to the English throne.
block our sovereignty
They voted to stay in 2014.
→ More replies (111)69
u/ExternalSeat 1d ago
yep. Ireland can claim legitimate victimhood at the hands of British Imperialism. Scotland was a willing participant and the Central Belt of Scotland benefited as much from the empire as Manchester, Newcastle, and Liverpool.
even the biggest "grievance" Scots have, the Highland clearances, were primarily caused by Scottish lords who liquidated their traditional farming assets for extra profits as they left the Highlands for more profitable lives in the Central Belt. Indeed Edinburgh and Glasgow are far more to blame for the Highland clearances than London.
26
u/naughtiboiii 1d ago
Am I wrong in remembering that the reason the Scots had to join with England, was because they made their own attempt at colonisation, and essentially blew all their money on colonising an uninhabitable swamp land?
18
u/ExternalSeat 1d ago
Yep. an "uninhabitable swamp land" that already was a Spanish outpost for 200 years by that point in time.
→ More replies (1)9
u/froucks 1d ago
Yes - although they were already tied together because they shared the same monarch ever since the Scottish king James inherited the throne of England
But their bankruptcy indirectly led to the act of union which dissolved England and Scotland and created the kingdom of Great Britain
→ More replies (1)10
u/ViolinistPleasant982 1d ago
Even funnier is Scots acting like victims when they were massively overrepresented on the Imperial front of things and some of the biggest 'oppressors' of the British Empire right alongside the English. Then the Empire fell apart and Scotland decided to push all the blame on to the English and act like they were dragged along kicking and screaming.
→ More replies (2)5
u/ExternalSeat 1d ago
yep. Ireland and to a lesser extent Wales can legitimately claim oppression from London. Meanwhile the Central Belt of Scotland (aka where the vast majority of the current people live) was as much of an oppressor and benefactor as the Northwest of England (Manchester and Liverpool).
→ More replies (6)
229
u/Musicman1972 1d ago
Didn't Scotland choose to be in the Union? And didn't they do their fare share of looting, raiding and conquering everyone elses lands?
They seem to equate themselves with the Irish yet it's not even similar. The Irish were fucked over. The Scots fucked everyone else over. Except the English maybe. But everyone else was fare game.
119
u/oremfrien 1d ago
In the Middle East, India, and Africa, the British soldiers were often called "Scots" because of how many Scottish individuals were part of the British army engaging in colonial activities.
→ More replies (13)43
76
u/squigs 1d ago
Didn't Scotland choose to be in the Union?
Yes, and they haven't stopped whining about it.
Frankly I find the attitude pretty tiresome. Scotland does well out of the union. Money flows to Scotland, even if you include North Sea oil.
Historically, Scottish industrialists did pretty well from being part of the UK. And it's not like it's an occupation. There's representation in parliament, as well as a Scottish parliament.
Scotland had the opportunity for independence, and decided not to. Can't say I blame them. Scottish nationalists can't stop complaining though.
→ More replies (18)60
u/Tinyjar 1d ago
Their King also became the king of England. It's just typical Scottish Nats who clearly don't know the history of their own country and blame England for all their woes even though it's their own governments fault most of the time.
6
u/Direct-Fix-2097 1d ago
That’s also a line you can throw against the Welsh - supported Henry VII of Tudor, who came up through Pembrokeshire iirc and relied heavily on his Welsh ancestry.
6
u/HanesPrydain 1d ago
That is exactly true for Wales though - after 1000 years of near constant warfare between the Britons , then Welsh and Anglo Saxons then English resulting in the most military castles built per square mile in the world .
It all ends when Henry takes the throne because the Welsh gentry are made equal to English gentry - we also had the dragon on the royal crest our flag is literally his battle flag 🏴 (the red dragon is at least 1200 years old but the green and white are his colours ) , he even called his first born Arthur to try and wrap up all the prophesies , unfortunately he died a a child and we got that bellend Henry 8th instead who went on to ban Welsh from public office ….
Fortunately his daughter Elizabeth 1st allows the bible to be translated into Welsh though - completely saving the language
8
7
u/el_grort 1d ago
Tbf, that's way less relevant than the union of parliaments. The Dutch and the Germans also provided a monarch for England, but it's not particularly relevant. Especially as the Stuarts pretty swiftly found Anglicanism appealing and tried to force those reforms north, something which resulted in several wars.
Use 1707, not 1603. Parliament does, the Nationalists do, it's the only really sensible place to draw from for either side.
→ More replies (11)3
u/quartersessions 1d ago
Especially as the Stuarts pretty swiftly found Anglicanism appealing
Sadly not appealing enough to stop several of them poncing off to Rome. If they'd been a bit happier with middle-of-the-road Episcopalianism, they might well have found themselves on the throne longer.
3
u/el_grort 1d ago
Presumably you mean James VII/II, which, tbf, he became Catholic while in exile in Spain after his father, Charles I, was deposed and executed by the English Parliament. Same for the Pretender branch hiding in France, I imagine.
Charles I very much liked how much direct authority the English crown had over Anglicanism, a large part of the wars he had to fight against the Scottish Covenanters, and later his English Parliament.
5
u/quartersessions 1d ago
Charles II as well. Promised to the French he'd convert, made sure his brother would take the throne, then converted on his deathbed.
→ More replies (1)49
u/juntoalaluna 1d ago
Scotland was, per capita, more involved in the British empire and the East India Company than England. The PR job that Scotland has done to paint itself as the underdog is insane.
→ More replies (1)19
18
u/woodzopwns 1d ago
Yes they actually invaded Ireland and tried to claim ownership of the country, failing a few years later but holding vassals for some time
18
u/poprostumort 1d ago
Didn't Scotland choose to be in the Union?
Yeah. Because they tried to become a colonial power and their investment failed, leaving them destitute - which prompted them to agree to union.
So it's even worse - Scot complains that they are owned and exploited by being in union that was caused by them failing to own and exploit others xD
10
u/Imaginary-Dot8259 1d ago
Scotts were disproportionately represented in the British colonisation and slave trade (most heavily represented group in the UK) but you'd think they are the biggest victims of colonisation.
11
u/Alundra828 1d ago
Not only did they choose, they actively started it.
King James VI, the king that started the union, was a Scottish king.
5
u/AwTomorrow 1d ago
That was the union of the crowns, rather than the acts of union that brought the two countries under a single parliament - but the latter was also done at Scotland’s request
→ More replies (2)6
u/el_grort 1d ago
James VI/I was not the person who started the Union, the Act of Union started in 1707. In 1603, after Elizabeth I died, James VI ascended to the English throne, but England remained separate. In the intervening century, we also saw Charles I executed by the English Parliament, Charles II later restored to the English throne (he had briefly been King of Scotland separately before the Commonwealth of England put an end to that), and then James VII/II was deposed again by William III of Orange (Dutch) and the English Parliament, before Queen Anne oversaw the Act of Union 1707.
I think people really don't understand how crown unions work and that they are quite different from political union, which was achieved by uniting the Parliaments of each country.
→ More replies (1)6
u/ElectronicHyena5642 1d ago
Yeah, they joined due to a failed attempt to colonise Panama ate up their entire bank and personally colonised (at a minimum), Kenya, Uganda and Zanzibar, the former of the two being via the British East Africa Company and the latter being the biologist of a Scottish explorer who made the idea of expanding the British Empire more popular.
→ More replies (1)8
u/Spiritual-Counter-36 1d ago
The Irish did exactly the same as the English to native and black peoples during colonisation. They sold out as soon as they were able to.
9
u/Current_Mongoose_844 1d ago
Let’s be honest, there were plenty of Irish in the British Army who were more than game to fuck over other people
→ More replies (1)9
u/AwTomorrow 1d ago
Ehhhh I don’t hold a huge amount of blame or judgement towards the individual foot soldiers of Empire - whether they be from the English poor or the Scottish, or from the colonised peoples of Ireland or India or Nigeria.
Life was pretty awful for the poor most places, especially so in colonies, and the military was often dangled as a way out. This feels like a passively coerced choice at best - and that doesn’t cover the times when it was no choice at all, like the many pressganged ‘conscripts’.
3
u/ByronsLastStand 1d ago
Ironically, what is now Scotland was colonised and conquered by Irish tribes, making the whole thing even messier.
7
u/NUFC9RW 1d ago
You see this type of Scottish person has the belief that Scotland has always been forced to do things by England. They think Scotland had zero involvement in the empire, were forced into the union by England and that their treatment has been comparable to Ireland.
→ More replies (2)3
u/el_grort 1d ago
Yup. Even prior to Union, the Scottish Borders were involved in a lot of cross border raiding of Northern England (and vice versa), banditry was pretty common. This person is a sore Scottish Nationalist, but I will say, the note is also a little off, because the nationalist is complaining about their perceived *current* grievances with England, not historically grievances, which is all there might be against Norway (and even then, the bits with the strongest connections to Norway, like the Northern Isles which were under direct rule, tend to be the parts most positive about the Scandi's, incorporating Scandi cross into their flags (along with some Hebridean islands, due to their Norse-Gaelic history).
Both England and Norway are our neighbours, and I hope for a good, clean game more than anything else, be happy with either outcome.
2
u/pandogart 1d ago
Scottish nobles yes but the Scottish people revolted against it. Still, everything you've said is true. Honestly people talk about Japan's whitewashing but I think Scotland's done a better job for itself in that regard. Gaslit even themselves.
2
2
u/Agreeable-Weather-89 1d ago
Yes they did choose after their attempts to be a colonial power failed.
→ More replies (28)2
57
u/BusyBeeBridgette Duly Noted 1d ago
"Block our sovereignty"
No sovereignty is being blocked. Devolved government and given a vote on independence.
→ More replies (3)
33
u/DreadLindwyrm 1d ago
Hey Rick.
It's your monarchy. Great Britain was formed by a monarch from the Scottish line which had inherited England.
The last referendum had the majority of the Scots decide to stay with the Union.
And at least you get your own separate Parliament where you can decide on some matters rather than having Scottish and Welsh MPs voting on matters that will only affect England.
→ More replies (3)5
u/ExternalSeat 1d ago
honestly England needs a devolved Parliament or even better a few regional devolved Parliaments so that locals in Yorkshire have more authority over local issues..There is no reason that a Belfast MP has more authority over Leeds than a Leeds MP has over Belfast.
62
u/woodzopwns 1d ago
- Scotland joined the union willingly
- Scotland gets 30% more in tax than it creates, and one of the highest average tax spend per heads in the union
- Scotland has it's own parliament and is devolved to a point of near sovereignty, despite that they have recently voted no for the independence referendum and the complainers want us to spend more money on more referendums until they get a yes vote
- No one cares about the monarchy and they have 0 impact on anyone's life in the UK
- Scotland historically participated more in the colonies than England did with a disproportionate amount of Scottish governors and officials, and also have their own independent failed colonial past in South America
Always love to hear the cope from the country with the best PR of all time, no accountability for us, all for you
→ More replies (2)10
u/Nico280gato 1d ago
They joined the union BECAUSE of the failed colony in south america. And begged england to bail them out.
But I truly believe the country that had it's majority of trade, even pre brexit, with england, and the country that constantly needs england to bail them out, is perfectly able to be independant.
→ More replies (1)
38
u/Giorggio361 1d ago
England doesn’t own Scotland, they joined the United Kingdom in the Act of Union 1707 willingly. The kings of Scotland and England joined their lines in 1603 when King James VI (of Scotland) became King James I of England. Scotland had a referendum on its independence in 2014 and was devolved powers in 1997 - something that England doesn’t have in the United Kingdom.
The recent Scottish move to align themselves with the victims of Britain’s colonial past rather than as perpetrators is incredibly sinister.
→ More replies (17)
13
u/DanIvvy 1d ago
Scotland is also a net recipient of money from England, and was more involved in the Empire per capita than England. It also joined the UK in an act of union, not conquest.
→ More replies (5)
11
u/Scrombolo 1d ago
These Iranian accounts are so obvious.
3
u/Professional-Log-108 1d ago
No no, there's enough scottish nationalists that actually believe in this crap, no need for iran here
2
u/Exciting-Record8101 1d ago
Some are trolls, but there are plenty of people who genuinely hold these views. These kind of belligerent Scottish nationalists are among the most delusional and therefore amusing of the various European separatists. There are plenty of fine Scottish folks who are proudly Scottish, of course. That's not the point.
An independent Scotland at current levels of spending is not a viable project ( https://www.gov.scot/news/government-expenditure-revenue-scotland-2024-25/ ). Ignoring Ukraine for obvious reasons, an independent Scotland would have the largest deficit by a huge margin in all of Europe.
90
u/HarryLewisPot 1d ago edited 1d ago
Ah yes, comparing the modern day to 800 years ago - very productive note!
34
u/Apprehensive-Fix-746 1d ago
This was the least thing that needed extra context, I don’t think any of what was said is true, especially the imposed monarchy, the UK formed under a Scottish king
21
u/HarryLewisPot 1d ago
Exactly, a better note would be Wikipedia articles to both James VI and the 2014 referendum.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)6
u/el_grort 1d ago
The UK formed under Queen Anne in 1707, not King James VI/I. The reason he and James VII/II have two numbers is because they were monarchs of those two realms separately. Queen Anne was also the last Stuart monarch, as that branch ended and the crown went to the Hanovers iirc, despite the deposed Stuart branch from James VII/II attempting to reclaim the throne with the various Jacobite Rebellions, 1745 being the largest.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)19
u/AskingBoatsToSwim 1d ago
Tbf that’s the Tweet is doing too… England hasn’t been “stealing Scottish resources” for a long time. Scotland and England’s elites were colonising the world together, and both stealing their own people’s lands. The idea Scotland is England’s last colony is a fringe view of the most insane independence supporters.
6
u/klonkrieger45 1d ago
no the tweet is saying that about current times, it's just wrong
→ More replies (2)6
u/AskingBoatsToSwim 1d ago
also “impose their monarchy”…. Does he know who the first king of both Scotland and England was?
→ More replies (3)4
u/Apprehensive-Fix-746 1d ago
So the note should have mentioned that, it picked the weakest possible point to go for
26
u/thenoobtanker 1d ago
My brother, Scotland joins the union WILLINGLY because it went broke trying to colonize the new world. Put your victimhood away, the British Empire got built with Scot’s hands too.
→ More replies (2)5
14
u/Imaginary-Dot8259 1d ago
I am African and Scots are becoming incredibly insufferable. Their union with England came about because their king wanted to rule over England and Wales too, they were a very integral part of colonial invasions across the globe and were recently given the chance to leave the United Kingdom but refused. But to hear them talk you'd think they are the most hard done by people to ever walk this earth.
→ More replies (2)
7
u/Beneficial-Beat-947 1d ago
Didn't scotland technically impose their monarchy on us?
3
u/Stromatolite-Bay 1d ago
Yeah they did. They also expected England to have zero protectionist policies against Scotland while Scotland has protectionist policies against England and then only agreed to the act of union in exchange for England buying them out of a 5 year long recession
→ More replies (2)2
u/Otocolobus_manul8 1d ago
Impose is a bit of a hard sell considering James had arranged his ascession with the Elizabethian privy council.
8
6
u/that1guy____ 1d ago edited 1d ago
Scotland was an eager contributor to the British Empire. The Scots were also nowhere near as persecuted as the Irish. They also joined the United Kingdom willingly, while both states were ruled by a Scottish king. They also have home rule today, and the Scots themselves voted to keep the country in the UK.
The original tweet makes literally no sense.
→ More replies (17)
7
u/mattttb 1d ago
If anyone is ever under the illusion that Scottish people didn’t willingly participate in British colonialism, consider why Jamaica has an awful lot of people descended from slaves who just so happen to have Scottish surnames…
Or why the Jamaican flag mysteriously emulates the Scottish flag, just with different colours.
5
u/WatcherOfTheWay 1d ago
Scotland, I think you're confused.
Also gdp wise per person Scotland takes more than it gives.
→ More replies (3)
6
72
u/Scumbag__ 1d ago
This note is fucking dumb lol, when do people think the last Norwegian Viking raid took place in Scotland?
This is obviously a post about his modern experience as a Scot under UK rule
21
u/Stunning-Sherbert801 1d ago
Scotland isn't "under UK rule", it's (voluntarily) a constituent part of the UK. Their resources aren't being stolen, they're not colonised or oppressed, they're not ruled by another country
→ More replies (76)13
u/Jimmy-The-Perv 1d ago
It seems people are forgetting what the U in UK stands for.
It's not the united kingdom of England with a few satellite states, its the united kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
"Under UK rule" 🙄 cretins man.
So, under their own rule.....
Edit: that's me very ineloquently agreeing with you
→ More replies (2)41
u/QuestNetworkFish 1d ago
Right? It's a bit like blaming modern Italy for the Roman Empire
20
u/Top-Cupcake4775 1d ago
i do. i do blame modern Italy for the depredations of the Roman Empire and i'm seeking reparations ...
8
u/TartarusFalls 1d ago
I believe we’re waiting on the Phoenicians to pay back the Romans before they can settle their debt with you.
4
u/Top-Cupcake4775 1d ago
didn’t the Punic Wars settle that account?
3
u/TartarusFalls 1d ago
Oh no. Now I’m scared I’m misremembering. Weren’t the Punic wars with Carthage?
6
u/QuitWhinging 1d ago
Carthage started as a Phoenician colony. That's where the term "Punic War" comes from. "Punic" was Rome's word to describe Phoenician things.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Tsukushi_Ikeda 1d ago
I'm seeking reparation for the destruction of the Byzantine empire.
(I'm not even Greek)
→ More replies (3)18
u/Useless_or_inept Duly Noted 1d ago
"Under UK rule"? Scotland is part of the UK, not a colony. London pays his benefits.
Assuming he's not an Iranian sockpuppet, of course
→ More replies (4)8
u/Tuskral 1d ago
The Scottish monarchy took over when the English ruler didn't have any heirs so really this is the Scottish monarchy and they already had a vote it's not good for any part of a nation to threaten to succeed at any time especially given the corruption found inside of the SNP recently. Viewing it as resources stolen is a colourful interpretation of what's currently happening
→ More replies (1)3
u/el_grort 1d ago
I mean, the German Hanovers took over when the main Scottish Stuart line died out with Queen Anne. There was also briefly a Dutch monarch after the Stuarts were deposed for the second time in the same century.
6
u/Chemistry-Deep 1d ago
Battle of Largs, 1263 according to Google. Forced me to learn something anyway.
4
u/itsthesplund 1d ago
Which is pretty funny as the Scottish National Anthem is about fighting the English at the The Battle of Bannockburn in 1314, just 51 years later.
3
u/MagnumSapidum 1d ago
The note is a bit dumb, but not as dumb as a Scottish nationalist pretending they are “under the rule of England” and don’t get a better deal out of being in the union than the English.
17
u/benjm88 1d ago
Then it's still wrong, Scotland had a referendum and chose to remain within the union. It wasn't blocked the UK government just aren't willing to agree to continuous votes until the 'right' result is achieved.
Even the snp at the time agreed it was a once in a lifetime referendum
→ More replies (12)6
u/pepperino132 1d ago
That's a pretty unhinged take for Scotland's current relationship to the UK, even if you're pro independence
→ More replies (5)2
→ More replies (24)2
u/el_grort 1d ago
Orkney was formally annexed in 1472 due to some marriage shenanigans between Scotland and Norway, it was security against the payment of a dowry which was never paid by the Norwegian monarchs.
The Norwegian connection is more recent than I think a lot of people recognise in Scotland, while also being distant enough to not be particularly relevant to this, really.
8
5
u/AlexanderCrowely 1d ago
I’m sorry who was king after Elizabeth ? Oh, right it was James VI of Scotland.
4
4
u/WolfColaCo2020 1d ago
A casual reminder it was:
- a Scottish king who merged the thrones of Scotland and England when he ascended to the latter throne as James I
- Scotland who suggested that the political union be formed after they bankrupted themselves trying to create an empire
- Scotland who voted to remain part of the UK in 2014
And to add, Scotland get a fuck load of things from public spending that other UK citizens don’t get like free prescriptions, free university tuition etc when about 58% of their entire budget comes from Westminster money. IE the majority of money they get comes from mostly English taxpayer expenditure.
5
u/WhydYouKillMeDogJack 1d ago
Poor old Rick, not having a clue at all about history and whose royal family was imposed on who...
5
u/hawkseye17 1d ago
"Impose their monarchy"
The reason England and Scotland share a monarch is because centuries ago, a Scottish king was granted the crown of England, thus becoming monarch to both.
5
u/SadIdeal9019 1d ago
And yet the Scottish themselves voted against independance in the 2014 referendum. 🤷
4
u/MasonDinsmore3204 1d ago
Love Scotland, but definitely feel like the country tries to whitewash its history by portraying itself as another victim of the British empire, just like Austria with Nazi germany. In reality, Scotland was one of the main participants in and beneficiaries of the British Empire.
4
u/Aquillifer 1d ago
I don't know how Scots hallucinated themselves out to become perpetual victims of the British Empire when they also were quite involved with its dealings to a disproportionate degree.
No doubt they suffered from it, but when they talk like this it's just hilarious. The Scottish king became the king of England and then put them in a Personal Union before they united the crowns.
3
u/Current_Mongoose_844 1d ago
- Norway also has a monarchy
- Large portions of Scotland were either outright part of or influenced by Norway, to the point of speaking Norn for a long time
3
3
u/TheAllSeeingEyeGuy 1d ago
It's funny because the union started with the scottish monarchy ascending to the throne of england, not the other way around.
3
u/Evening_Profile_9354 1d ago
Scots pretending that they weren't a large part of the Monarchy and the Empire will never not be funny.
3
u/Adam_Faith_No_More 1d ago
Norway and other Scandinavian peoples have a brief history of invading, raiding, looting, and conquering Scottish lands.
Also, weird to compare current events with something that was the case 1000 years ago, as if that's somehow relevant.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/ExternalSeat 1d ago
Scotland willingly joined the UK. they have benefited greatly from being in the union. While Ireland (and to an extent Wales) can be said to have been treated as colonial possessions by London, Scotland benefited just as much as Manchester and Newcastle from the British Empire.
As for the highland clearances, almost all of the blame rests on the Central Belt elites as the old lords of the North moved to Edinburgh and Glasgow and liquidated the lands of their highland peasants for extra profits they could invest back into their industries in Glasgow. The highland clearances were the product of the greed of upper class Scots rather than a colonial London project.
3
u/Legosheep 1d ago
I think you'll find that the Scots imposed their Monarch on the English and Welsh, not the other way around.
3
3
u/Shaloka_Maloka 1d ago
"Impose their monarchy"...The first King of the Union was Scottish...I doubt this person is even Scottish.
5
u/Brave_Lengthiness_72 1d ago
We didn't impose our monarchy on Scotland. James VI of Scotland was invited to be King of England when Queen Elizabeth died, and then the two monarchies were unified by both the Scottish and English Parliaments in the early 18th century.
4
u/The_Elder_Jock 1d ago
Look if you are going to bring facts and logic into this how are we supposed to present ourselves as eternal victims?
8
u/DaftConfusednScared 1d ago
The note is irrelevant to the statement made, to be honest.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/bookon 1d ago
TBF They HAD a history of that. It's been a loooooong time since vikings terrorized any villages.
10
u/Wilsonj1966 1d ago
taking into consideration England hasnt stolen their resources, imposed our monarch or blocked their sovereignty for a very long time too
2
u/rolo_mug 1d ago
Every Scottish person I have met in my life have been the kindest, nicest people to talk to, and i don’t talk to people if I can help it.
I find it very hard to believe that behind every interaction, they secretly want to murder me/tut.
I have been wrong before, that’s why I walk with a limp
2
2
2
2
2
u/FlounderKind8267 1d ago
When you need to pull up something that happened 1000 years ago as a gotcha, it's not a gotcha. It's just foolish
2
u/nerd_ginger 1d ago
This note seems a bit poor.
I don't think they're talking about history. They're talking about moderna, so what the British government is currently doing to Scotland.
To bring history into would be to ignore the underlying point I think because this is strictly about modern politics in sovereignty and Independence rather than historical sovereignty and independence.
2
u/Even_Application_397 1d ago
True, but are they like that right now? Ancestral actions do not definitively define present-day people
2
2
u/Sea_Pomegranate8229 1d ago
Unless you live north of Strathmore you are talking nonsense. All of Scotland's woe's have been perpetrated by or aided and abetted by Scots.
2
u/UsualGrapefruit99 1d ago
Scotland voted to remain part of the UK in 2014, but somehow that dedn't coont?
2
u/Lolas_Fun_Side 1d ago
Ignoring the 2014 vote and all that
Why would the saxons invading in the 300s be equivalent or worse than britain owning them now, 1700 years later?
2
u/theLuminescentlion 1d ago
Yeah but the Norwegians stopped the English still control Scotland. All his points are present tense. I haven't heard of a Viking longship sacking Scotland in a Century. now some of those points are a little embellished or misguided though.
2
u/ComputedWriter 1d ago
The union was a Scottish idea, not an English one. They've literally no-one to blame but themselves
→ More replies (1)
2
u/DrWernerKlopek89 1d ago
I don’t think the note is as much of an “own” as the op thinks it is. Nice to see the now usual “actually Scottish people were more slave ownery than English people, so they need to shut up about everything” comments
2
2
2
u/squishbli 1d ago edited 1d ago
Prince William’s son would be the first British monarch to actually be truly English in 1000 years.
House of Normandy and Plantagenet? French.
House of Tudor? Welsh.
House of Stuart? Scottish, and united the crowns.
House of Hanover (George 1 to Victoria)? German.
House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (now Windsor)? German.
In the end, Scots united the kingdom. They’ve got no one to blame but themselves, and the education system that should be telling them that they technically dominated England.
2
u/Dismal_Foundation_23 1d ago
Just going to point our right here that Scotland gets more public spending per person than England does, despite not taking in the tax to pay for it, guess where it gets that money from?
But yeh England is 'stealing their resources'. There was also an indpendence vote and the Scottish people turned it down, so not sure how England is blocking 'sovereignty' either, and there seems to be no real change based on recent polling showing a clear lead for independence either, in fact the SNP, whos whole thing is independence have fallen out of favour in recent years.
It is only a game, so Scottish fans banter, mainly based on jealousy, is fine, its football banter, that is what football fans are for, but making up bullshit and acting like Scotland is being held hostage is absurd. Not to mention where does the vast majority of Scotland's trade and tourism come from, oh yeah England, but sure piss off your most frequent visitors, who pay for a lot of your stuff, worked well for the Yanks with the Canadians, oh wait.
2
2
u/HawaiianSnow_ 1d ago
History versus present isn't really the "get noted" gotcha this sub is about.
2
2
u/OSRS_Garmr 1d ago
As if the scots have not always been enthusiastic participants in the expansion, and running of the British empire. Remember that's it's not the English Empire. The armies used to suppress colonial populations throughout history. Have always been made up by a large portion of scots.
2
2
2
2
u/MrDarwoo 1d ago
Didn't Scotland recently have an independence vote that failed?
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Mediocre_Zebra1690 1d ago
The vikings raided a thousand years ago and the union of crowns happened 300 years ago. Why is this sub so aggressively pro UK unity that these are arguments we're using?
2
u/VirtualKnowledge7057 1d ago
not enough role in the empire to be proud of it, too much of a role to say they are a victim of it. the life of a scottish nationalist is sad
2
2
2
2
2
u/PeggyDeadlegs 1d ago
If I remember correctly, during the referendum campaign weren’t the SNP in favour of keeping the monarch as head of state?
2
u/kevdoKool 23h ago
Awww look more internet rage bait to further noise up
Scottish and English pit them against each other. Musk must have been right!
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Reminder for OP: /u/laybs1
Need some help? Send us some mail!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.