This series of interviews is courtesy of Reunite, who are launching a campaign to stop Keir Starmer and New Labour 2.0's plans to "reform" Britain's constitution and further dilute the power of parliament. Please sign their petition for a referendum on the matter here: reunitegb.com/
Very interesting talk as always David, but are we really to suppose, as this 'reunite' organisation apparently believes, that parliament and democracy should not be reformed at all in this country? Its clear that this government is imperilling the Union with its vastly irresponsible policies, including the withdrawal from the EU, which 8 years on, really hasn't garnered any tangible benefits at all, and giving free rein to the folly of the nationalists in scotland and wales. As ever, english and british history has been characterised by adapting to change within democratic means, rather than falling into revolution and despotism. We must recognise in the 21st century that this country should change to a more proportional and federal system, or fall into ever increasing irrelevance and obscurity...
@@jonathanw6859 *"We must recognise in the 21st century that this country should change to a more proportional and federal system, or fall into ever increasing irrelevance and obscurity"* Absolutely disagree (enough to fight a war, both civil and foreign, over it),... England must be maintained and must be free from foreign powers... Its clear that the Union is imperilling England and thus must be dissolved... that is by far preferable to a proportional and federal system. Its our traditional mixed constitution which has kept England free from revolution and despotism... and its always the attempt to change from this that leads us Englishmen to fall into ever increasing irrelevance and obscurity and into revolution and despotism. The traditional English parliamentary system did not need to change as it was already better at adapting to change by democratic means without changing its fundamental structure... New Labour completely destroyed this in the 90s & 200s, and New Labour 2.0 plans to "reform" England's constitution so our traditional mixed constitution, and thus our traditional English parliamentary system, can not be restored by democratic means without changing its fundamental structure... at the end of the day, parliament and representative governance (not democracy, that can die) needs restoration, not reform.
The union is well past its sell by date. I'd love to see in my lifetime an independent Scotland and England. I believe both nations would be better off in so many ways. Unfortunately, here in Scotland, there are far too many cowards. The only way its happening is if the English make a push for it.
I’ve never heard so much rubbish said by David Starkey in my life, so many untruths and misrepresentation and convenient cozying up with Mr economical with the truth 🏴
I suggest Mr Starkey acquaints himself with the English Parliament’s “Alien Act” of 1705 . He might also like to read up on the Scottish Parliamentary System pre-Union a.k.a “The Three Estaitis “. Scotland per se was NOT Bankrupt ;the Darien Scheme was privately funded -It was the nobility(. the 2nd Estate) and the up and coming burgesses who sunk their money into the Darien Scheme who were bankrupt.
worst part is that the Darien scheme failed because of the English using alien act and worked with dutch and spanish to make sure it failed. then bribed all the peeople who lost money to vote in favor of the union and they would pay them "compensation" and ever worse of it all the brain child of the Darien scheme went on to found the bank of england
As a white Australian, the vast majority of us are mixed, part English/Scottish/Irish. As such its harder to understand the huge conflicts between them on such a small Island. Genentically, I am equally English and Scottish, but i identify more with the English side.
However to outside observers 'white' Australians and New Zealanders are viewed as essentially the same and Brits have referenced them both as antipodeans. Yet to you, there is clear differences and you would never identify as the same.
My experience of Australia is that there are a hell of a lot of synthetic claims to Irish or Scottish ancestry were none really exists. Many Australians with nothing more than one Scottish great grandmother will claim 'Scottish ancestry' when the entire rest of the family is English. It's just a thing over there, and not sure why. - but if your family is English you could be labelled a transported crim, but claiming Celtic lineage means you are an 'oppressed battler', or some such guff.
A needlessly passive aggressive remark. I can always count on you so called conservatives to puff yourself up and attack those who are 99.99% the same as you, instead of the foreign hordes replacing you or the police arresting you for making a mean tweet.
I disagree notions of a British nation had been around since Elizabethan times, King James the 1st of England 6th of Scotland then trys to make it a reality by proclaiming himself King of Magna Britannia Great Britain. The English Parliament however refused his request for a full political and Regal Union. I agree that until the late 19th century English people still predominately described themselves as English, Welsh as Welsh Scots as Scots, Irish as Irish. However this changes in my view after the 1870's when Victoria is proclaimed Queen Empress of India. And the British Empire is at the hight of its power then a true National sense of Britishness prevails right through the 1st and 2nd world wars until the 1950's when the Empire shrinks to Commonwealth and the British almost instinctively revert to the old Home Nationalism of England Scotland Wales' Ireland ofcourse being torn between Nationalist and Unionist.
Not sure why Starkey keeps beating this drum of Englishness. Germany used to be very split, into a multitude of states: Prussia, Saxony, Bavaria, etc. Yet today a German considers himself primarily a German, not a Bavarian, a Swabian or a Saxon. Similarly, in Italy, which also used to be divided into statelets, people consider themselves Italian, not Sicilian or Roman or Venetian or Lombard. Why does Starkey keep beating down Britishness as something fake? It's not fake, it exists and it's genuine. I am British and proud of it. Englishness for me, southern Englishness in my case, is more of a regional feeling. It's not as if England is a very unified entity, anyway; the cultural differences between the south-east and the north are huge.
Half of Scotland is on record as not wanting anything to do with Britishness and as even unionist Scots will happily tell you, pretty much all Scots consider themselves Scots primarily and that as their primary loyalty. Scots don't share in this supposed British identity, and a hell of a lot of English people don't either. So what is it? Apart from your good self Britishness only exists in the minds of some middle-class English people - who are almost invariably thinking of Englishness when they do - and some Westminster politicians. Oh and foreigners, who, again, are actually confusing Britishness for Englishness. And yes a lot of the places you list do actually think of their 'regional' identities as having a great deal of primacy. You might want to read up on how people in southern Italy think of the north and vice-versa in particular.
Sorry for the late reply. We shouldn't compare England, Germany, and Italy since they don't share the same history and culture. Germany was unified in 1866, Italy 1861, and England in 927. Furthermore, regionalisation in England is a new concept from the 1990s, and English folk routinely identify with their shire/county.
Shut up with ya buyers remorse. The union was Scotland's idea. Dog like it feels free to give back all the money England has given you to date. Your country has a parasitic relationship with England. You're the ones doing the milking. The EU won't let ya milk them like Yas do the English. Then there's the loss of access to England herself, think of all the Scott's that go to England for work they're now out of the job, and now England is rebuilding Hadrian's wall to keep the Scott's out again.personally as an Australian I think Yas should all just breed each other out and become Anglo-celtic like we are, hurry up and become Australian, how are Aussies more united in Britishness than the British? Cos ya have to be different from the gimmigrants?
Never known anyone to be so consistently dishonest or uneducated about egery aspect of histiry they cover. This is Englands version of history. The colonizers.
Yes, which narrates its utter failure and pathetic attempt to emulate the success of England. No wonder the Jocks have to lie about their past and make films that depict some defamatory English invasion, as the truth is far too painfully embarrassing to accept, lol.
Subvention ( a grant of money, especially from a government ) any money coming from government is Tax raised from it's citizens, or corporation Tax raised through industry, England does not grant any monies to Scotland the UK government apportions funding to every area of the Union as the government is required to.
@@djmull63 English citizens outnumber Scottish citizens and the City of London (hands down the most prospers corporation and thus the most Taxed) is in England... so England does grant money to Scotland.
@@foundationofBritain No England does not hand down anything the UK government apportions funding you seem to be confused about England and UK government which governs the whole of the Union.
When Dr Starkey mentions Britishness he is quite right in saying there really is, on the home front, no such thing. A person is either English, Welsh, Scottish, or Irish. British is somehow reserved on the home front for immigrants, who can never aspire to be known by the indigenous name as it is an impossibility. It is the same as me going to live in Calcutta (Kolkata) and calling myself a Bengali. When one looks at the treatment of the Scots since 1707 they have received generous settlements leading right up to date with the imbalance in the national spending per capita. Interestingly according to the population figures in 1707, the percentage of Scots to English/Welsh is exactly the same as it is today.
Well, that's just factually wrong... the people of these four nations of geographical British Isles have always been waring against one another, mainly the Scots and us Englishmen all throughout to middle ages... when we Englishmen were fighting the French, the Scots were invading England... this constantly happened in our (English) wars with the French... James Charles Stuart's illegal Accession in England in 1603 made Anglo-Scottish wars impossible with out being civil wars which did happen because the Scottish House brought foreign ides of divine right to England and caused civil wars, revolutions and imposed despotism the common English folk.
It never ceases to amaze and disappoint me that these things need to be said again and again. On the other hand, “No better man” to be putting them so well. I’m pretty sure the name “Britain” comes from us or the Scots (whose own name actually refers to the tribe from around Antrim), in any case it is nothing but a recent construct.
The name '(Great) Britain' is a translation of the continental name of the largest island in the British Isles: in French, 'Grande Bretagne'. It was originally only ever used as a geographical term, hence the name of the United Monarchic realm , which lists the *territories* ruled by the Monarch. That's because Kings (or Queens) are always 'of somewhere'. The correct name for the country is 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain, etc.'. 'Britain' is just either a shorthand or laziness. The UK is *not* a 'nation', a term implying that all inhabitants were born there ('nationis' (Latin) = 'by birth'), and that common descent is the most important characteristic of the population. It's actually a 'racist' term. 'Great' in 'Great Britain' refers only to size, not to a quality of a 'nation'. A whole satirical tradition of hatred has attached to the idea that the word 'Great' was a *boast*. Completely false. In fact the boast (and hope) of 'Britons' was that they should 'never, never' be slaves. Sounds good to me.
Fact check! The 500,000 population figure stated in the opening is incorrect. The actual number is 1.2m. Speaks to the laziness of presentation when a "historian" can't get a basic number correct at the start!! Avoid!!
If "the creation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland was unspokenly . . . a multi national state" how does he (for just one example) explain the colonisation of the northern part of Ireland by English and lowland Scots colonists in the 17th and 18th centuries? And the enforcement of laws to make this part of the UK (that wasn't protestant and English speaking) protestant and English speaking, like England! The UK was not a "multi national estate" That is Starkey's big problem - most of what he comes up with is intellectual waffle with an eye to current politics and culture wars, that bears no resemblance to the actual history as experienced by the peoples of the British Isles as they lived through it.
The UK was always three nation states in a full parliamentary union... and its three not four, because only three nations had a state of there own (England, Ireland & Scotland) hence the union flag is made up of three flags not four, the fourth nation did not have a state of its own, it still doesn't, it only operates within the state of another nation... because it got absorbed into another nations body politic... I don't think I need to mention this nations name... but there's a reason why there's only three Law jurisdictions... English Law, Irish Law & Scots Law... there's no British Law... The idea the UK is a nation, is indeed intellectual waffle, with no baring on reality what so ever.
Two separate issues. Scotland had ambitions over Ireland from the establishment of Dal Riada by the Ulster origin tribe. England's focus was driven by Norman aristocracy quashing a potential rival power centre and Dublin had been a multinational port since the Vikings took it.
What a wonderful way of wrapping up a power grab to make it sound like a favour England done us. Bought and sold for English gold. Its was never the will of the Scots people be be part of any union.
The English excluded Scotland from English markets in Europe.Although many Scots prospered enormously from the Union as individuals, the country never prospered.I agree with you entirely that there is no such thing as British,we are Scots,English and Welsh and in the past as a united endevour we were unstopable.However,in this modern age we are very different politically,the Scots being Social Democrats and the English being Conservative,there is no reason to continue with the Union as we are worlds apart.
The Scots aren't "Social Democrats", they're benefits scroungers. They NEED the English taxpayers to fund their welfare state. Without England and its taxpayers to prop Scotland up, it'd collapse. Hence why they are very pro nanny state and centralisation. They could not hack it on their own.
The English aren't Conservative and the Scottish are Social Democrat. You have absolutely no evidence to support this. Scotland, is more conservative then England on social issues. The opinion polls show that England and Scotland share virtually the same opinions on social issues. Though Scotland is significantly more against immigration then England. More refugees went to one council in London then the entirety of Scotland last year. Furthermore, England liberalised gay marriage before Scotland which they had to have a "consultation". You have absolutely no idea with what you're talking about. The SNP policy during the referendum was to copy Ireland economic model of virtually zero corporation tax. That doesn't sound social democratic at all. You have absolutely no idea between Scotland and England.
The English always return Conservative M.PS.That is why the U.K has suffered Tory austerity for 13 years.The Scots would never vote for that party.Just look at election results.That`s your proof.Scotland would never vote for the likes of Johnson,Rees Mogg,Dorries,Coffey et al.Only a certain type of people hater would.@@kincaidwolf5184
In the early part of the 17th century Scotland was trading quite successfully with Africa and Asia but the English didn’t like it so they introduced the Navigations Acts of 1660 and 1663, which effectively blockaded Scotland into submission, decreeing that Scotland could only trade internationally if it did so on English ships where 75% of the crew were English, which of course the Scots could not do. The Darien Scheme was just Scotland’s final death throes to establish overseas trading links, which they knew they had to do if they were to survive. The Scots had to ask England’s permission for the Darien Scheme and in fact the English contributed half the funds for the scheme then at the last minute withdrew them and then did everything they could to make sure the project failed, which of course it did. The English then bribed the Scottish nobility with ‘if you dissolve your parliament and come under English rule, we will reimburse the money you lost’, but when this didn’t work the English then introduced the Alien Act of 1705, which would have castrated the Scottish nobility. Even as the Act of Union was being signed the English had their arm amassed in Ulster and on the Scottish border, and their navy anchored in the Firth of Forth off Edinburgh and the English Chancellor of the day famously said, ‘It’s union or war’. Hardly a voluntary union. The English nationalist myth that Scotland entered the union because it was bankrupt, is nothing more than that, a myth. In 1707 Scotland’s national debt was £160k, and if, given its larger population England’s debt had been commensurate with Scotland’s, they would have been in debt to the tune of about £800k, but they weren’t, England’s debt was £18m. It wasn’t Scotland that was bankrupt, it was England. Furthermore, if the ‘Scotland was bankrupt’ myth was true and there was any mention of debt in the Act of Union you would imagine it would be England telling Scotland not to worry about their debt as the kind English had it covered but in fact the only mention of debt in the Act of Union is England forcing Scotland to pay a share of England’s debt. So now the Scots not only came under English rule they did so for the privilege of paying off England’s debt. Much as he despises the Scots, not even David can believe the Scots are that stupid. In the first English parliament in 1707 after Scotland came under English rule, the Scots had 45 representatives and the English 486. Given Scotland’s population at the time was about 1m and England’s about 5.6m, the parliament was not, as David suggests, skewed in Scotland’s favour, and even if it was, when you are outnumbered by more than ten to one, you are only ever going to get what the other guy wants. Or as Daniel Defoe, an English spy of the time, said, ‘The Scots will be allowed to send to Westminster, a handful of men who will make no weight whatever. They will be allowed to sit there for form’s sake to be laughed at’. The one thing David said, which is true, is that the union was a political union. It was never a territorial union, which is interesting because, even if you believe Westminster to be the British parliament (and not the English parliament, which it self-evidently is, unless you can’t count) there is nothing in the Treaty of Union that gives that parliament the right to as much as a blade of grass in Scotland. This, therefore, means that all the resources that have been extracted from Scotland in the name of the union (£1 trillion worth of oil and gas to start with) are in fact colonial blunder. David suggests that the idea of Scotland being an English colony is preposterous yet the question that was ask of the people of Scotland in 2014 was, ‘Should Scotland be an independent country?’ As this question was agreed by both sides of the argument presumably both parties agreed that Scotland wasn’t an independent country otherwise the question would have made no sense. As being an independent country means you are self-governing, if you are not independent it therefore means you are not self-governing and strangely enough the United Nation’s definition of a colony is a ‘non-self-governing territory’. Unfortunately, if you are looking for David to clarify your misunderstanding about the union you are probably barking up the wrong Stalinist tree.
So in a way you can think of Britain as a more effective holy Roman empire, or austro-hungarian empire within the British isles? What an interesting notion.
It's over, one political party must not be able treat people, " Well if political Party's stop making us Poor" Scotland will be part of the EU. Re-Join by the EU by 25. Ps. BLA BLA BLA
Interesting points. However, the idea that Britain is not a nation, or is somehow just a recent construct, is a Scottish and English nationalist myth. 1. A nation is an amalgam of culture, identity, faith, character, and political constitution. Its existence is validated by the patriotism of its people, often paid in blood! In that sense, Britain most certainly exists! 2. The idea that there was no attempt to impose some kind of "single culture" is not correct. There were certainly attempts, especially regarding the matter of faith - often bloody and unsuccessful during the 17th century for example, but also successful! 3. The passage of time, and its effects upon us can create something new which wasn't there before, because experience changes the essence of things.
England and Scotland had been around for a millenia before the act of union, which by comparison was a mere three hundred years ago. So yes, as a matter of factual record Britain is a recent construct in comparison to England and Scotland. Starkey is completely correct. Englishness and Scottishness are organic national identities while Britishness is a political invention and because it is, it's always struggled to gain traction as a cultural reality. When people abroad think of 'British' cultural markers - tea-drinking, RP, Cockney, etc, what they're actually thinking of are English cultural markers. Do you believe that Maastricht created a European national identity? It's the same principle with the Act of Union - it might have wanted to, but it didn't.
Well you could try but the Scottish Curriculum “History “ module encourages students to look at an event (e.g. the Union) Investigate,evaluate utilising information from a wide variety of sources and develop the capacity for critical thinking to come to a reasoned and justified point of view. The rather Anglocentric ,ill informed vignette as presented here would get ripped to shreds. I am Confident Dr Starkey can & has produced peer reviewed articles to “ Cochrane Standard” q.v but that’s not his target audience here ….is it? Sorry pal we’ve had our fill of our own history being “tellt” to us by our southern neighbour
He mentions that Scotland was struggling,but he didn't elaborate on why,and as we all know,our downfall was created by England,in the form of the alien act,the English navigation act and the act of settlement Nice try Starkey
@@foundationofBritain You have clearly had a sense of humour bypass. If you want to be picky, re watch because of the key points that Starkey is making with regards to the composition of the UK.
am so glad that Dr Starkey has put out this short video to remind people why Scotland became part of Britain. Scotland made itself bankrupt by investing in the Darian scheme and the way things are just now in Scotland, England may have to come to it's rescue again.
Not true at all, Scotland spent SOME of its national wealth but was not bankrupt, not close. It had no debt, whereas England has MASSIVE debts and with the act of union made these debts Scotland's
@@stablefairy9437 😂😂😂😂 'virtually bankrupt', do you live in the real world... Using your logic 'England' is already bankrupt as its income doesnt pay for its debt... It borrows money. Scotland is a great country with a fantastic economy and many natural resources, ones we've had to share for free to our closest neighbours...
But no mention of the English role in the failure of the Darien scheme? Darien failed for a multitude of reasons - but it wasn't like the English were sad to see it fail, or didn't play some role in its failure. To be fair to Dr. Starkey, it is possible that he discusses the Darien failure in greater detail before this talk picks up.
It's almost like Scotland and England were two competing nations with their own interests at heart. Wow, I wonder why this tale as old as time seems to be something a lot of commentators can't get their head around. Why should England, a larger and more prosperous nation, feel the need to extend the hand of benevolence, in any capacity, to a country that it had been at war with, on and off, for 500 years. Indeed, Scottish forces had invaded England 4 times about 50 years previous, albeit under the proviso of various political machinations.
I broadly agree with how David characterises the history of the union but as a Scot it does annoy me that he completely brushes over the Scottish reaction to the idea of union, he doesn’t mention the debates in the Scottish Parliament between the pro- and anti-union factions and their motivations and nor does he talk about the riots which put scotland under martial law.
As an Englishman, the union of crowns never meant to happen... James Charles Stuart's Accession in England in 1603 was illegal as per the Act of Succession 1543 (Third Succession Act or Succession to the Crown Act 1543) an English parliamentary statute that among other things, excluded the Scottish House from the English line of Succession. The Union of 1707 should of never happened as well.
@@thesmilinggun-knight9646 it certainly looked like that albeit for a section of Scottish society. From an English perspective of course there was little grasp of the divisions inside Scotland. Just that Personal Union and then Union brought into Government and Parliament Scots.
Does anyone out here smell bullshit? I think Salvo has looked into legal facts in a better way than this guy has as good as he is. So there may be a flaw in this from the kick-off.
Had it not been for Scotland being such an important part of the Empire, it’s culture, Pipers, Dance, would not have reached all the corners of the world, and would not have won the hearts of so many of us. 🇬🇧🏴🇲🇽
Sorry, you obviously didn't watch this properly. The English empire was doing just fine before we took pity on the Jocks and their feeble attempts at empire and subsequent bankruptcy and let them become a part of ours. Hilarious how your assertion that the empires global dominance was entirely down to a few bagpipe blowers doing a jig... 😅😅😅 I'm sure you're Scottish so such absurd sophistry and refusal to ever acknowledge the humiliating defeats of your country, is exoected. 🏴
@chiefgilray There is a big difference between the USA having English ancestors from 400 years AND the people who share a small rocky island. 20% of English people have at least 1 Irish grandparent lmao. There are more Irish people in Britain than Ireland! 1 in 5 Scots were born in England. 1 in 4 Welsh were born in England. Even the Scottish Nationalists leader Nicola Sturgeon has an English parent. Absolutely nothing wrong with English-speaking people having strong ties to England. I'm not sure why you are spouting anti-English rhetoric. Westminster hardly controls anything that directly affects Scotland. Local taxes, council tax, borrowing powers, income tax, transport, health etc remains tied to the Scottish Parliament. Look at the great work Greater Manchester is doing. Trams, airports, and buses are all linked together. Manchester declared an open city for the homeless. What has the SNP delivered? Free university fees for the middle-class? Whoop. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown and David Cameron all from Scottish background. How many Scots claim to be Irish in Glasgow? Alot. How many Scots in the Shetlands and Orkney Islands claim to be Vikings, alot.
Dr Starkey laying down facts here again, almost insinuating Great Britain as a political union was the cradle-like beginnings of modern day globohomo. Giga chad energy from the good doctor of learning.
He's actually lying. Darien faied because of the English making mives to prevent european nations aiding Scotland. It was scotlands last effort to stay independent and it bankrupged Scotland by design. The scot never agreed to the union rich landowners were bought by ghe english sorry Belgium crown. Conveniently fails to mention the war ships and english sorry dutch army at scotoands border. Maybe read the Scots parliament concersations about it from the period.
Vaccines don't work to conquer disease unless all people get vaccinated. I don't get why anti-vaxxers don't understand this. Smallpox did NOT just go away on its own! To be anti-vaccination is to be PRO-disease, not pro-freedom.
@@markmh835 Maybe stop calling them "anti-vaxxers" and understand its a violation of the Rights of Englishmen to have forced vaccinations... Smallpox was able to be eradicated within a generation because it don't mutate... flu like viruses DO, and you will never eradicated them and the more they mutate, the less deadly they are. Also... cut that shit out, To be anti-vaccination is not to be PRO-disease... that's like saying "To be anti-immortality is to be PRO-death"... nobody, unless your evil, is pro-disease just as nobody is pro-death... most people are pro-freedom... now what is 'freedom' is debatable... but saying stupid things like that makes your argument weak and just wrong... and that's to say nothing on a proper debate on the validity, legality and morality of mandatory vaccines.
I'm a little skeptical that there was never an idea of a British nation. When the idea of being a Briton was revived in the 18th century, was it not with an eye to the fact that the Scots, English, and Welsh alike all descend from the ancient Britons? And when this fact was brought back to the fore, and when the cultural output of Britain turned its attention back to ancient Britain, was the new British nation not then in the making, in the 18th and 19th centuries?
The Anglo-Saxon invasion during the 5th Century pushed the original inhabitants (the Ancient Britons) into the far reaches of the country (Wales, Cornwall) and gave their name to the country we now call England.
@@stewy62 This is demonstrably untrue. Many of the Britons in what is today England fled West, eventually towards Wales, and Southwest, to Brittany, but most of them stayed put. There isn't any evidence of a genocide of the ancient Britons having been carried out by the Anglo-Saxons. And modern genetic evidence shows that a majority of English ancestry derives from these ancient Britons, albeit with a substantial Anglo-Saxon contribution.
@@supahnubz Certainly DNA analysis shows us to be pretty mixed up, which is not surprising considering the Viking and Norman invasions and another thousand years of history. We’ll never know for sure what happened in the 5th Century as not a lot was recorded but certainly very little of the language of the Ancient Britons was incorporated into Olde English. You may not agree with this example but at the height of British power in the 19th century when sports were being organised did we set up a British Football Association ? No, and in fact most team sports within the UK are set up on an individual nation basis - Ice Hockey being one of the few team sports where we have a British league at the elite level and a GB representative team. David Starkey is not I think a sports fan but I believe the example of sports supports his statement that Britishness is for export only.
@@stewy62 We certainly do have strong national identities within Britain, but the fact that as David Starkey points out Scots began to think of themselves as North Britons, in contrast to English South Britons (and an Irish MP would even sugest that the Irish could become West Britons), demonstrates also that there was at least among some people at the time a strong sense of British nationality.
@@supahnubzI just want to push back against the idea that we Scots thought of our selves as ‘north Britons’ only a very small number of aristocratic Scots thought like that. Edit Britishness means nothing to Scots, Welsh, Irish and English it merely something we use for foreigners who can’t see the differences between the four groups.
Scotland was not bankrupt, didn't even have a debt, in fact England was MASSIVELY in debt and Scotland has been paying their debt since the act of union... Funny that he won't mention this fact...
Scotland was nearly bankrupt... that's what he said. England may have debt, but it also had a huge income at the time. Scotland didn't. The Scots wanted a union for a reason... lots of denial going on here.
@@gooner_duke2756 but it wasn't nearly bankrupt, it took a quarter of the wealth of people, that's not the country going bankrupt. Scotland also had zero debt, England were IN DEBT... meaning it was in NEGATIVE EQUITY, Scotland just lost a few bob. Scots didn't want a union, the English didn't want a union.
I agree that 'the people' didn't especially want a union and it was very much a political union. I'll cite a summary of the context of the act of union: "The Scottish establishment (landed aristocracy and mercantile elites) considered that their best chance of being part of a major power would be to share the benefits of England's international trade and the growth of the English overseas possessions and so its future would have to lie in unity with England. Furthermore, Scotland's nobles were almost bankrupted by the Darien fiasco". "Some Scottish nobility petitioned Westminster to wipe out the Scottish national debt and stabilise the currency. Although the first request was not met, the second was, and the Scottish shilling was given the fixed value of an English penny". "Personal Scottish financial interests were also involved. Scottish commissioners had invested heavily in the Darien project and believed that they would receive compensation for their losses. The 1707 Acts of Union, Article 15, granted £398,085 10s sterling to Scotland to offset future liability towards the English national debt". It was more than losing a few bob. Scotland did have debt and it also had no money left after the Darien project... Quote: "It Is technically correct but highly misleading to say that Scotland had no national debt in 1707. Like pre-1694 England, Scotland’s financial administration operated as a pay-as-you-go system, eked out by short-term loans. It worked well enough up to 1688 but then broke down, leaving an increasing burden of public debt". "In 1704, outstanding debt for the period 1689-1700 alone was estimated to be about £110,000 sterling, a sum that exceeded a year’s normal revenue. From 1702, renewed war added to the debt, and by 1707 warrants issued by the Treasury were often little better than IOUs". Scotland was in trouble after the failed Darien project. The government, nobility, merchants, etc., needed a union, even if the people didn't.
Also: "Scotland has been paying their debt since the act of union... ". So how do you make sense of this: "The 1707 Acts of Union, Article 15, granted £398,085 10s sterling to Scotland to offset future liability towards the English national debt". ??? They gave Scotland money so that it didn't have to pay any English debt. Right ?
Scotland has gone skint untold times and been rescued by England - historical fact. Sorry if that dampens your Jock hard man image loool but you can't government yourselves at all. England has never gone bankrupt - your feeble lies are very desperate and sad looking lol.
This series of interviews is courtesy of Reunite, who are launching a campaign to stop Keir Starmer and New Labour 2.0's plans to "reform" Britain's constitution and further dilute the power of parliament. Please sign their petition for a referendum on the matter here: reunitegb.com/
Domestic sovereignty through every nation. What a lovely idea. Perhaps Europe should try that sometime.
Very interesting talk as always David, but are we really to suppose, as this 'reunite' organisation apparently believes, that parliament and democracy should not be reformed at all in this country? Its clear that this government is imperilling the Union with its vastly irresponsible policies, including the withdrawal from the EU, which 8 years on, really hasn't garnered any tangible benefits at all, and giving free rein to the folly of the nationalists in scotland and wales. As ever, english and british history has been characterised by adapting to change within democratic means, rather than falling into revolution and despotism. We must recognise in the 21st century that this country should change to a more proportional and federal system, or fall into ever increasing irrelevance and obscurity...
@@jonathanw6859 *"We must recognise in the 21st century that this country should change to a more proportional and federal system, or fall into ever increasing irrelevance and obscurity"*
Absolutely disagree (enough to fight a war, both civil and foreign, over it),... England must be maintained and must be free from foreign powers... Its clear that the Union is imperilling England and thus must be dissolved... that is by far preferable to a proportional and federal system.
Its our traditional mixed constitution which has kept England free from revolution and despotism... and its always the attempt to change from this that leads us Englishmen to fall into ever increasing irrelevance and obscurity and into revolution and despotism.
The traditional English parliamentary system did not need to change as it was already better at adapting to change by democratic means without changing its fundamental structure... New Labour completely destroyed this in the 90s & 200s, and New Labour 2.0 plans to "reform" England's constitution so our traditional mixed constitution, and thus our traditional English parliamentary system, can not be restored by democratic means without changing its fundamental structure... at the end of the day, parliament and representative governance (not democracy, that can die) needs restoration, not reform.
Tried to open the reunite thing it wouldn't let me ?😮
The union is well past its sell by date. I'd love to see in my lifetime an independent Scotland and England. I believe both nations would be better off in so many ways. Unfortunately, here in Scotland, there are far too many cowards. The only way its happening is if the English make a push for it.
I’ve never heard so much rubbish said by David Starkey in my life, so many untruths and misrepresentation and convenient cozying up with Mr economical with the truth 🏴
I suggest Mr Starkey acquaints himself with the English Parliament’s “Alien Act” of 1705 . He might also like to read up on the Scottish Parliamentary System pre-Union a.k.a “The Three Estaitis “. Scotland per se was NOT Bankrupt ;the Darien Scheme was privately funded -It was the nobility(. the 2nd Estate) and the up and coming burgesses who sunk their money into the Darien Scheme who were bankrupt.
worst part is that the Darien scheme failed because of the English using alien act and worked with dutch and spanish to make sure it failed. then bribed all the peeople who lost money to vote in favor of the union and they would pay them "compensation" and ever worse of it all the brain child of the Darien scheme went on to found the bank of england
So basically all the people that mattered. That figures then.
As a white Australian, the vast majority of us are mixed, part English/Scottish/Irish. As such its harder to understand the huge conflicts between them on such a small Island. Genentically, I am equally English and Scottish, but i identify more with the English side.
Great story, bro. 🙄
However to outside observers 'white' Australians and New Zealanders are viewed as essentially the same and Brits have referenced them both as antipodeans.
Yet to you, there is clear differences and you would never identify as the same.
@@tzazosghost8256 There is little difference between white Australians and New Zealanders.
My experience of Australia is that there are a hell of a lot of synthetic claims to Irish or Scottish ancestry were none really exists. Many Australians with nothing more than one Scottish great grandmother will claim 'Scottish ancestry' when the entire rest of the family is English. It's just a thing over there, and not sure why. - but if your family is English you could be labelled a transported crim, but claiming Celtic lineage means you are an 'oppressed battler', or some such guff.
A needlessly passive aggressive remark. I can always count on you so called conservatives to puff yourself up and attack those who are 99.99% the same as you, instead of the foreign hordes replacing you or the police arresting you for making a mean tweet.
Look up the video Salvo Union on trial
I disagree notions of a British nation had been around since Elizabethan times, King James the 1st of England 6th of Scotland then trys to make it a reality by proclaiming himself King of Magna Britannia Great Britain. The English Parliament however refused his request for a full political and Regal Union.
I agree that until the late 19th century English people still predominately described themselves as English, Welsh as Welsh Scots as Scots, Irish as Irish. However this changes in my view after the 1870's when Victoria is proclaimed Queen Empress of India. And the British Empire is at the hight of its power then a true National sense of Britishness prevails right through the 1st and 2nd world wars until the 1950's when the Empire shrinks to Commonwealth and the British almost instinctively revert to the old Home Nationalism of England Scotland Wales' Ireland ofcourse being torn between Nationalist and Unionist.
Ireland was a colony of England and GB it had no autonomy, only English landed colonist gentry could go to "Irish" parliament.
He was James 6th of Scotland long before he took over England in 1603 the title should be James 6th of Scotland and 1st of England!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not sure why Starkey keeps beating this drum of Englishness. Germany used to be very split, into a multitude of states: Prussia, Saxony, Bavaria, etc. Yet today a German considers himself primarily a German, not a Bavarian, a Swabian or a Saxon. Similarly, in Italy, which also used to be divided into statelets, people consider themselves Italian, not Sicilian or Roman or Venetian or Lombard. Why does Starkey keep beating down Britishness as something fake? It's not fake, it exists and it's genuine. I am British and proud of it. Englishness for me, southern Englishness in my case, is more of a regional feeling. It's not as if England is a very unified entity, anyway; the cultural differences between the south-east and the north are huge.
Half of Scotland is on record as not wanting anything to do with Britishness and as even unionist Scots will happily tell you, pretty much all Scots consider themselves Scots primarily and that as their primary loyalty.
Scots don't share in this supposed British identity, and a hell of a lot of English people don't either. So what is it?
Apart from your good self Britishness only exists in the minds of some middle-class English people - who are almost invariably thinking of Englishness when they do - and some Westminster politicians. Oh and foreigners, who, again, are actually confusing Britishness for Englishness.
And yes a lot of the places you list do actually think of their 'regional' identities as having a great deal of primacy. You might want to read up on how people in southern Italy think of the north and vice-versa in particular.
An English man in Scotland is subject to a different legal system. In Wales he sees signs in Welsh and hears the locals speaking foreign language.
Sorry for the late reply. We shouldn't compare England, Germany, and Italy since they don't share the same history and culture. Germany was unified in 1866, Italy 1861, and England in 927.
Furthermore, regionalisation in England is a new concept from the 1990s, and English folk routinely identify with their shire/county.
Scotland should have the same rights to leave the union as the UK had to leave the EU!
What was the referendum about?
Shut up with ya buyers remorse. The union was Scotland's idea. Dog like it feels free to give back all the money England has given you to date. Your country has a parasitic relationship with England. You're the ones doing the milking. The EU won't let ya milk them like Yas do the English. Then there's the loss of access to England herself, think of all the Scott's that go to England for work they're now out of the job, and now England is rebuilding Hadrian's wall to keep the Scott's out again.personally as an Australian I think Yas should all just breed each other out and become Anglo-celtic like we are, hurry up and become Australian, how are Aussies more united in Britishness than the British? Cos ya have to be different from the gimmigrants?
Never known anyone to be so consistently dishonest or uneducated about egery aspect of histiry they cover. This is Englands version of history. The colonizers.
The English are not native to Britannia the English are migrants from Germany why do English call themselves Brits/British?????????????????
Finally a video about a part of the UK other than England. Massive fan of him and his channel.
Yes, which narrates its utter failure and pathetic attempt to emulate the success of England.
No wonder the Jocks have to lie about their past and make films that depict some defamatory English invasion, as the truth is far too painfully embarrassing to accept, lol.
Ty it's factually incorrect
It’s a complete misrepresentation of what actually happened 🏴
It seems as though Scotland only survived with massive subvention from England, which continues to this day.
No one can deny that the Scots and Irish are genetically and culturally inferior to the English.
Subvention ( a grant of money, especially from a government ) any money coming from government is Tax raised from it's citizens, or corporation Tax raised through industry, England does not grant any monies to Scotland the UK government apportions funding to every area of the Union as the government is required to.
@@henryclamore4791 As an Englishman, I'd not bet any money on genetically... but culturally inferior?, aye, I'd bet money on that.
@@djmull63 English citizens outnumber Scottish citizens and the City of London (hands down the most prospers corporation and thus the most Taxed) is in England... so England does grant money to Scotland.
@@foundationofBritain No England does not hand down anything the UK government apportions funding you seem to be confused about England and UK government which governs the whole of the Union.
Signed. Thank you!
Would love to know the books he had on his shelves?
When Dr Starkey mentions Britishness he is quite right in saying there really is, on the home front, no such thing. A person is either English, Welsh, Scottish, or Irish. British is somehow reserved on the home front for immigrants, who can never aspire to be known by the indigenous name as it is an impossibility. It is the same as me going to live in Calcutta (Kolkata) and calling myself a Bengali. When one looks at the treatment of the Scots since 1707 they have received generous settlements leading right up to date with the imbalance in the national spending per capita. Interestingly according to the population figures in 1707, the percentage of Scots to English/Welsh is exactly the same as it is today.
@@benjaminwinchester3408very much yes cry harder.
Centuries of intermarriage have made the British into one people. There are now more people with Scottish ancestry in England than in Scotland itself.
I always learn so much from Dr. Starkey’s brilliant talks.❤
Except in this talk it’s utter nonsense 🏴
The people of these four nations of geographical British Isles have always got on with each other. The leaders, less so.
That's a nice idea. I'm not sure if it's true.
@@MsMounendepends on if the constituency you happen to be in voted snp/green or not.
Well, that's just factually wrong... the people of these four nations of geographical British Isles have always been waring against one another, mainly the Scots and us Englishmen all throughout to middle ages... when we Englishmen were fighting the French, the Scots were invading England... this constantly happened in our (English) wars with the French... James Charles Stuart's illegal Accession in England in 1603 made Anglo-Scottish wars impossible with out being civil wars which did happen because the Scottish House brought foreign ides of divine right to England and caused civil wars, revolutions and imposed despotism the common English folk.
Tell that to the people of south Wales, in an English accent... I dare you.
You need to make a distiction between the people, and their greedy stupid leaders. In that respect nothing changes.@@foundationofBritain
It never ceases to amaze and disappoint me that these things need to be said again and again. On the other hand, “No better man” to be putting them so well. I’m pretty sure the name “Britain” comes from us or the Scots (whose own name actually refers to the tribe from around Antrim), in any case it is nothing but a recent construct.
The name '(Great) Britain' is a translation of the continental name of the largest island in the British Isles: in French, 'Grande Bretagne'. It was originally only ever used as a geographical term, hence the name of the United Monarchic realm , which lists the *territories* ruled by the Monarch. That's because Kings (or Queens) are always 'of somewhere'. The correct name for the country is 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain, etc.'. 'Britain' is just either a shorthand or laziness. The UK is *not* a 'nation', a term implying that all inhabitants were born there ('nationis' (Latin) = 'by birth'), and that common descent is the most important characteristic of the population. It's actually a 'racist' term. 'Great' in 'Great Britain' refers only to size, not to a quality of a 'nation'.
A whole satirical tradition of hatred has attached to the idea that the word 'Great' was a *boast*. Completely false. In fact the boast (and hope) of 'Britons' was that they should 'never, never' be slaves. Sounds good to me.
Fact check! The 500,000 population figure stated in the opening is incorrect. The actual number is 1.2m. Speaks to the laziness of presentation when a "historian" can't get a basic number correct at the start!! Avoid!!
If "the creation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland was unspokenly . . . a multi national state" how does he (for just one example) explain the colonisation of the northern part of Ireland by English and lowland Scots colonists in the 17th and 18th centuries? And the enforcement of laws to make this part of the UK (that wasn't protestant and English speaking) protestant and English speaking, like England! The UK was not a "multi national estate" That is Starkey's big problem - most of what he comes up with is intellectual waffle with an eye to current politics and culture wars, that bears no resemblance to the actual history as experienced by the peoples of the British Isles as they lived through it.
The UK was always three nation states in a full parliamentary union... and its three not four, because only three nations had a state of there own (England, Ireland & Scotland) hence the union flag is made up of three flags not four, the fourth nation did not have a state of its own, it still doesn't, it only operates within the state of another nation... because it got absorbed into another nations body politic... I don't think I need to mention this nations name... but there's a reason why there's only three Law jurisdictions... English Law, Irish Law & Scots Law... there's no British Law... The idea the UK is a nation, is indeed intellectual waffle, with no baring on reality what so ever.
Two separate issues. Scotland had ambitions over Ireland from the establishment of Dal Riada by the Ulster origin tribe.
England's focus was driven by Norman aristocracy quashing a potential rival power centre and Dublin had been a multinational port since the Vikings took it.
Another outstanding video
Not so, bias is never factual.
Starkey is peddling lies on the Union, he misses out important facts. He’s an English elitist 🏴
What a wonderful way of wrapping up a power grab to make it sound like a favour England done us. Bought and sold for English gold. Its was never the will of the Scots people be be part of any union.
The English excluded Scotland from English markets in Europe.Although many Scots prospered enormously from the Union as individuals, the country never prospered.I agree with you entirely that there is no such thing as British,we are Scots,English and Welsh and in the past as a united endevour we were unstopable.However,in this modern age we are very different politically,the Scots being Social Democrats and the English being Conservative,there is no reason to continue with the Union as we are worlds apart.
The Scots aren't "Social Democrats", they're benefits scroungers. They NEED the English taxpayers to fund their welfare state.
Without England and its taxpayers to prop Scotland up, it'd collapse. Hence why they are very pro nanny state and centralisation. They could not hack it on their own.
@@mariotoast911sounds like social Democrats to me.
The English aren't Conservative and the Scottish are Social Democrat. You have absolutely no evidence to support this. Scotland, is more conservative then England on social issues. The opinion polls show that England and Scotland share virtually the same opinions on social issues. Though Scotland is significantly more against immigration then England. More refugees went to one council in London then the entirety of Scotland last year. Furthermore, England liberalised gay marriage before Scotland which they had to have a "consultation". You have absolutely no idea with what you're talking about. The SNP policy during the referendum was to copy Ireland economic model of virtually zero corporation tax. That doesn't sound social democratic at all. You have absolutely no idea between Scotland and England.
The English always return Conservative M.PS.That is why the U.K has suffered Tory austerity for 13 years.The Scots would never vote for that party.Just look at election results.That`s your proof.Scotland would never vote for the likes of Johnson,Rees Mogg,Dorries,Coffey et al.Only a certain type of people hater would.@@kincaidwolf5184
@@kincaidwolf5184em... Just look at voting patterns and stop being so delusional
In the early part of the 17th century Scotland was trading quite successfully with Africa and Asia but the English didn’t like it so they introduced the Navigations Acts of 1660 and 1663, which effectively blockaded Scotland into submission, decreeing that Scotland could only trade internationally if it did so on English ships where 75% of the crew were English, which of course the Scots could not do. The Darien Scheme was just Scotland’s final death throes to establish overseas trading links, which they knew they had to do if they were to survive.
The Scots had to ask England’s permission for the Darien Scheme and in fact the English contributed half the funds for the scheme then at the last minute withdrew them and then did everything they could to make sure the project failed, which of course it did. The English then bribed the Scottish nobility with ‘if you dissolve your parliament and come under English rule, we will reimburse the money you lost’, but when this didn’t work the English then introduced the Alien Act of 1705, which would have castrated the Scottish nobility.
Even as the Act of Union was being signed the English had their arm amassed in Ulster and on the Scottish border, and their navy anchored in the Firth of Forth off Edinburgh and the English Chancellor of the day famously said, ‘It’s union or war’. Hardly a voluntary union.
The English nationalist myth that Scotland entered the union because it was bankrupt, is nothing more than that, a myth. In 1707 Scotland’s national debt was £160k, and if, given its larger population England’s debt had been commensurate with Scotland’s, they would have been in debt to the tune of about £800k, but they weren’t, England’s debt was £18m. It wasn’t Scotland that was bankrupt, it was England. Furthermore, if the ‘Scotland was bankrupt’ myth was true and there was any mention of debt in the Act of Union you would imagine it would be England telling Scotland not to worry about their debt as the kind English had it covered but in fact the only mention of debt in the Act of Union is England forcing Scotland to pay a share of England’s debt. So now the Scots not only came under English rule they did so for the privilege of paying off England’s debt. Much as he despises the Scots, not even David can believe the Scots are that stupid.
In the first English parliament in 1707 after Scotland came under English rule, the Scots had 45 representatives and the English 486. Given Scotland’s population at the time was about 1m and England’s about 5.6m, the parliament was not, as David suggests, skewed in Scotland’s favour, and even if it was, when you are outnumbered by more than ten to one, you are only ever going to get what the other guy wants. Or as Daniel Defoe, an English spy of the time, said, ‘The Scots will be allowed to send to Westminster, a handful of men who will make no weight whatever. They will be allowed to sit there for form’s sake to be laughed at’.
The one thing David said, which is true, is that the union was a political union. It was never a territorial union, which is interesting because, even if you believe Westminster to be the British parliament (and not the English parliament, which it self-evidently is, unless you can’t count) there is nothing in the Treaty of Union that gives that parliament the right to as much as a blade of grass in Scotland. This, therefore, means that all the resources that have been extracted from Scotland in the name of the union (£1 trillion worth of oil and gas to start with) are in fact colonial blunder.
David suggests that the idea of Scotland being an English colony is preposterous yet the question that was ask of the people of Scotland in 2014 was, ‘Should Scotland be an independent country?’ As this question was agreed by both sides of the argument presumably both parties agreed that Scotland wasn’t an independent country otherwise the question would have made no sense. As being an independent country means you are self-governing, if you are not independent it therefore means you are not self-governing and strangely enough the United Nation’s definition of a colony is a ‘non-self-governing territory’.
Unfortunately, if you are looking for David to clarify your misunderstanding about the union you are probably barking up the wrong Stalinist tree.
Couldn't have put it better.
His comments about the highlands of Scotland being catholic are wrong.
So in a way you can think of Britain as a more effective holy Roman empire, or austro-hungarian empire within the British isles? What an interesting notion.
It's over, one political party must not be able treat people, " Well if political Party's stop making us Poor" Scotland will be part of the EU. Re-Join by the EU by 25. Ps. BLA BLA BLA
Interesting points. However, the idea that Britain is not a nation, or is somehow just a recent construct, is a Scottish and English nationalist myth.
1. A nation is an amalgam of culture, identity, faith, character, and political constitution. Its existence is validated by the patriotism of its people, often paid in blood! In that sense, Britain most certainly exists!
2. The idea that there was no attempt to impose some kind of "single culture" is not correct. There were certainly attempts, especially regarding the matter of faith - often bloody and unsuccessful during the 17th century for example, but also successful!
3. The passage of time, and its effects upon us can create something new which wasn't there before, because experience changes the essence of things.
Hardly.
Britain did not come about til the 18th century whilst England and Scotland had been existing centuries before so how is it a myth?
England and Scotland had been around for a millenia before the act of union, which by comparison was a mere three hundred years ago. So yes, as a matter of factual record Britain is a recent construct in comparison to England and Scotland.
Starkey is completely correct. Englishness and Scottishness are organic national identities while Britishness is a political invention and because it is, it's always struggled to gain traction as a cultural reality. When people abroad think of 'British' cultural markers - tea-drinking, RP, Cockney, etc, what they're actually thinking of are English cultural markers.
Do you believe that Maastricht created a European national identity? It's the same principle with the Act of Union - it might have wanted to, but it didn't.
This should be taught in all Scottish schools.
At propaganda....
Well you could try but the Scottish Curriculum “History “ module encourages students to look at an event (e.g. the Union) Investigate,evaluate utilising information from a wide variety of sources and develop the capacity for critical thinking to come to a reasoned and justified point of view. The rather Anglocentric ,ill informed vignette as presented here would get ripped to shreds. I am Confident Dr Starkey can & has produced peer reviewed articles to “ Cochrane Standard” q.v but that’s not his target audience here ….is it?
Sorry pal we’ve had our fill of our own history being “tellt” to us by our southern neighbour
He mentions that Scotland was struggling,but he didn't elaborate on why,and as we all know,our downfall was created by England,in the form of the alien act,the English navigation act and the act of settlement
Nice try Starkey
Absolutely. I am a proud Scot. He is so correct. We are strong together. We need each other 🏴🇬🇧United We Stand Divided We Fall.
@@leslieelizabeth219. "I'm a proud Scot, but.....". The epitome of the 'Scottish Cringe'.
An excellent 'spotlight' on this facet of Britain ( ?) :)
*'England'* not 'Britain.
@@foundationofBritain You have clearly had a sense of humour bypass. If you want to be picky, re watch because of the key points that Starkey is making with regards to the composition of the UK.
Ghost of Elizabeth Regina is still in Charge. ""She Purred".
am so glad that Dr Starkey has put out this short video to remind people why Scotland became part of Britain. Scotland made itself bankrupt by investing in the Darian scheme and the way things are just now in Scotland, England may have to come to it's rescue again.
Not true at all, Scotland spent SOME of its national wealth but was not bankrupt, not close. It had no debt, whereas England has MASSIVE debts and with the act of union made these debts Scotland's
No we were not. You know nothing about Scotland
@@chiefgilray ok virtually bankrupt. it was the case tho that they had to form a union with England to save themselves.
@@brucemacallan6831 ok virtually bankrupt. it was the case tho that they had to form a union with England to save themselves.
@@stablefairy9437 😂😂😂😂 'virtually bankrupt', do you live in the real world... Using your logic 'England' is already bankrupt as its income doesnt pay for its debt... It borrows money. Scotland is a great country with a fantastic economy and many natural resources, ones we've had to share for free to our closest neighbours...
Such information should be taught in our schools......instead, they are told there are 134 different genders.
O you want propaganda
But no mention of the English role in the failure of the Darien scheme? Darien failed for a multitude of reasons - but it wasn't like the English were sad to see it fail, or didn't play some role in its failure. To be fair to Dr. Starkey, it is possible that he discusses the Darien failure in greater detail before this talk picks up.
who cares about the boring Darien scheme? we English just need to get rid of Scotland and N.I.
It's almost like Scotland and England were two competing nations with their own interests at heart. Wow, I wonder why this tale as old as time seems to be something a lot of commentators can't get their head around. Why should England, a larger and more prosperous nation, feel the need to extend the hand of benevolence, in any capacity, to a country that it had been at war with, on and off, for 500 years. Indeed, Scottish forces had invaded England 4 times about 50 years previous, albeit under the proviso of various political machinations.
I broadly agree with how David characterises the history of the union but as a Scot it does annoy me that he completely brushes over the Scottish reaction to the idea of union, he doesn’t mention the debates in the Scottish Parliament between the pro- and anti-union factions and their motivations and nor does he talk about the riots which put scotland under martial law.
As an Englishman, the union of crowns never meant to happen... James Charles Stuart's Accession in England in 1603 was illegal as per the Act of Succession 1543 (Third Succession Act or Succession to the Crown Act 1543) an English parliamentary statute that among other things, excluded the Scottish House from the English line of Succession.
The Union of 1707 should of never happened as well.
Yes but it's rather he's correcting the lie that the English were enthusiastic about Union. Outside of Elite circles it had little support.
@@tzazosghost8256 but in doing so he makes it seem like my country jump on the idea of union with England the first chance it got.
@@thesmilinggun-knight9646 it certainly looked like that albeit for a section of Scottish society. From an English perspective of course there was little grasp of the divisions inside Scotland. Just that Personal Union and then Union brought into Government and Parliament Scots.
@@thesmilinggun-knight9646 Bankrupts on a sinking ship of state are want to do that.
Speaking of negotiation,
thank goodness the UK negotiated an exit clause when it joined the EU.
England should have negotiated an exit clause when it joined up with the Scottish crown and then parliament
Does anyone out here smell bullshit? I think Salvo has looked into legal facts in a better way than this guy has as good as he is. So there may be a flaw in this from the kick-off.
This was great
It is also a spiritual union
huh? in what way?
The use of the present tense in a historical context is an offputting factor. I had to switch off.
brilliant
Had it not been for Scotland being such an important part of the Empire, it’s culture, Pipers, Dance, would not have reached all the corners of the world, and would not have won the hearts of so many of us. 🇬🇧🏴🇲🇽
🤦♂
Sorry, you obviously didn't watch this properly. The English empire was doing just fine before we took pity on the Jocks and their feeble attempts at empire and subsequent bankruptcy and let them become a part of ours.
Hilarious how your assertion that the empires global dominance was entirely down to a few bagpipe blowers doing a jig... 😅😅😅
I'm sure you're Scottish so such absurd sophistry and refusal to ever acknowledge the humiliating defeats of your country, is exoected. 🏴
The British Act of Union is the greatest political event in history 🏴🇬🇧🏴🏴 this small island will always be united.
😂😂😂😂More want to leave than ever
Most of which are the English
@rnw2739 There is nothing wrong with that:) most English people have Scottish, Welsh, and Irish heritage.
@@kincaidwolf5184 so do Americans... Does that mean they must be ruled by Westminster?
@chiefgilray There is a big difference between the USA having English ancestors from 400 years AND the people who share a small rocky island. 20% of English people have at least 1 Irish grandparent lmao. There are more Irish people in Britain than Ireland! 1 in 5 Scots were born in England. 1 in 4 Welsh were born in England. Even the Scottish Nationalists leader Nicola Sturgeon has an English parent. Absolutely nothing wrong with English-speaking people having strong ties to England. I'm not sure why you are spouting anti-English rhetoric. Westminster hardly controls anything that directly affects Scotland. Local taxes, council tax, borrowing powers, income tax, transport, health etc remains tied to the Scottish Parliament. Look at the great work Greater Manchester is doing. Trams, airports, and buses are all linked together. Manchester declared an open city for the homeless. What has the SNP delivered? Free university fees for the middle-class? Whoop. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown and David Cameron all from Scottish background. How many Scots claim to be Irish in Glasgow? Alot. How many Scots in the Shetlands and Orkney Islands claim to be Vikings, alot.
Dr Starkey laying down facts here again, almost insinuating Great Britain as a political union was the cradle-like beginnings of modern day globohomo. Giga chad energy from the good doctor of learning.
He's actually lying. Darien faied because of the English making mives to prevent european nations aiding Scotland. It was scotlands last effort to stay independent and it bankrupged Scotland by design. The scot never agreed to the union rich landowners were bought by ghe english sorry Belgium crown. Conveniently fails to mention the war ships and english sorry dutch army at scotoands border. Maybe read the Scots parliament concersations about it from the period.
Do you still support mandatory vaccines?
Vaccines don't work to conquer disease unless all people get vaccinated. I don't get why anti-vaxxers don't understand this. Smallpox did NOT just go away on its own! To be anti-vaccination is to be PRO-disease, not pro-freedom.
@@markmh835 Maybe stop calling them "anti-vaxxers" and understand its a violation of the Rights of Englishmen to have forced vaccinations... Smallpox was able to be eradicated within a generation because it don't mutate... flu like viruses DO, and you will never eradicated them and the more they mutate, the less deadly they are. Also... cut that shit out, To be anti-vaccination is not to be PRO-disease... that's like saying "To be anti-immortality is to be PRO-death"... nobody, unless your evil, is pro-disease just as nobody is pro-death... most people are pro-freedom... now what is 'freedom' is debatable... but saying stupid things like that makes your argument weak and just wrong... and that's to say nothing on a proper debate on the validity, legality and morality of mandatory vaccines.
Tarkey is a fruitloop
@@chiefgilrayYour a bitter, jealous mong whos country has been bankrupt untold times.. England never has... how gutted are ya? loool 🏴 🏴
I'm a little skeptical that there was never an idea of a British nation. When the idea of being a Briton was revived in the 18th century, was it not with an eye to the fact that the Scots, English, and Welsh alike all descend from the ancient Britons? And when this fact was brought back to the fore, and when the cultural output of Britain turned its attention back to ancient Britain, was the new British nation not then in the making, in the 18th and 19th centuries?
The Anglo-Saxon invasion during the 5th Century pushed the original inhabitants (the Ancient Britons) into the far reaches of the country (Wales, Cornwall) and gave their name to the country we now call England.
@@stewy62 This is demonstrably untrue. Many of the Britons in what is today England fled West, eventually towards Wales, and Southwest, to Brittany, but most of them stayed put. There isn't any evidence of a genocide of the ancient Britons having been carried out by the Anglo-Saxons. And modern genetic evidence shows that a majority of English ancestry derives from these ancient Britons, albeit with a substantial Anglo-Saxon contribution.
@@supahnubz Certainly DNA analysis shows us to be pretty mixed up, which is not surprising considering the Viking and Norman invasions and another thousand years of history. We’ll never know for sure what happened in the 5th Century as not a lot was recorded but certainly very little of the language of the Ancient Britons was incorporated into Olde English.
You may not agree with this example but at the height of British power in the 19th century when sports were being organised did we set up a British Football Association ? No, and in fact most team sports within the UK are set up on an individual nation basis - Ice Hockey being one of the few team sports where we have a British league at the elite level and a GB representative team. David Starkey is not I think a sports fan but I believe the example of sports supports his statement that Britishness is for export only.
@@stewy62 We certainly do have strong national identities within Britain, but the fact that as David Starkey points out Scots began to think of themselves as North Britons, in contrast to English South Britons (and an Irish MP would even sugest that the Irish could become West Britons), demonstrates also that there was at least among some people at the time a strong sense of British nationality.
@@supahnubzI just want to push back against the idea that we Scots thought of our selves as ‘north Britons’ only a very small number of aristocratic Scots thought like that.
Edit
Britishness means nothing to Scots, Welsh, Irish and English it merely something we use for foreigners who can’t see the differences between the four groups.
More unionist propaganda
Scotland was not bankrupt, didn't even have a debt, in fact England was MASSIVELY in debt and Scotland has been paying their debt since the act of union... Funny that he won't mention this fact...
Scotland was nearly bankrupt... that's what he said. England may have debt, but it also had a huge income at the time. Scotland didn't. The Scots wanted a union for a reason... lots of denial going on here.
@@gooner_duke2756 but it wasn't nearly bankrupt, it took a quarter of the wealth of people, that's not the country going bankrupt. Scotland also had zero debt, England were IN DEBT... meaning it was in NEGATIVE EQUITY, Scotland just lost a few bob.
Scots didn't want a union, the English didn't want a union.
I agree that 'the people' didn't especially want a union and it was very much a political union.
I'll cite a summary of the context of the act of union:
"The Scottish establishment (landed aristocracy and mercantile elites) considered that their best chance of being part of a major power would be to share the benefits of England's international trade and the growth of the English overseas possessions and so its future would have to lie in unity with England. Furthermore, Scotland's nobles were almost bankrupted by the Darien fiasco".
"Some Scottish nobility petitioned Westminster to wipe out the Scottish national debt and stabilise the currency. Although the first request was not met, the second was, and the Scottish shilling was given the fixed value of an English penny".
"Personal Scottish financial interests were also involved. Scottish commissioners had invested heavily in the Darien project and believed that they would receive compensation for their losses. The 1707 Acts of Union, Article 15, granted £398,085 10s sterling to Scotland to offset future liability towards the English national debt".
It was more than losing a few bob. Scotland did have debt and it also had no money left after the Darien project...
Quote:
"It Is technically correct but highly misleading to say that Scotland had no national debt in 1707. Like pre-1694 England, Scotland’s financial administration operated as a pay-as-you-go system, eked out by short-term loans. It worked well enough up to 1688 but then broke down, leaving an increasing burden of public debt".
"In 1704, outstanding debt for the period 1689-1700 alone was estimated to be about £110,000 sterling, a sum that exceeded a year’s normal revenue. From 1702, renewed war added to the debt, and by 1707 warrants issued by the Treasury were often little better than IOUs".
Scotland was in trouble after the failed Darien project. The government, nobility, merchants, etc., needed a union, even if the people didn't.
Also: "Scotland has been paying their debt since the act of union... ".
So how do you make sense of this: "The 1707 Acts of Union, Article 15, granted £398,085 10s sterling to Scotland to offset future liability towards the English national debt". ??? They gave Scotland money so that it didn't have to pay any English debt. Right ?
Scotland has gone skint untold times and been rescued by England - historical fact. Sorry if that dampens your Jock hard man image loool but you can't government yourselves at all. England has never gone bankrupt - your feeble lies are very desperate and sad looking lol.
What God has brought together ket no man put asunder
Got 1 minute into this and already mistruths. This is dake news.