The union of 1707 only merge the crowns of Scotland and England to form Kingdom of GB. The -Lordship- Kingdom of Ireland remains separate until the Acts of Union in 1801 when the UK is formed.
The video is titled "How was The Kingdom of Great Britain Formed" - not UK... also clearly states 'Great Britain' on the 1707 map - there are no inaccuracies.
@@ChunkaMonka Then why is Ireland part of the 1707 map for Great Britain? The Lordship of Ireland was seperate from Great Britain up until the act of union of 1801 when the UK was formed. So there are inaccuracies.
Elizabeth died, her Scottish cousin, who already ruled Scotland, also inherited the English crown. Really not as complicated as people want to make it seem. More like an inevitability, really.
There were two minor things that were ignored. It was an orderly transfer of Power due to the work of Robert Cecil. One was Mary's conviction of treason could have if Elizabeth decided resulted in attainment or forfeiture of all claims to English lands and titles and Henry VIII's will have precedence to the heirs of his younger sister Mary (the Brandons and later the Grey's) over that of his older sister Margaret (the Stuarts). But in the end you are right it was a nothing burger.
@@davidlegrice4207 kinda like the Personal Union of the monarchies of Great Britain and Hanover. It end when Victoria inherited the British crown and her uncle Ernest Augustus inherited the Hanoverian throne.
@@davidlegrice4207 where in my explanation did I refute that? I simply noted how the eventual outcome came about. It makes obvious sense that, at some point, the governments were merged for the sake of uniformity in governance. I would venture a guess that, had occurred earlier, maybe Scotland would have been from where the laws came, being that James was Scottish. Or, maybe not. It could have been a matter of the closer proximity to the mainland that London ended up being chosen. But, all I said was the death of Elizabeth gave James both kingdoms.
Plus you got the new world who you think helped kick the english out if America.. We left them Wexwere to never ve freinds. You dont claim war say your kand our land.. Then start holding hands again that is definition of listening to the devil.. No taxation without representation
Depends on what you're referring to. If you're referring to the landmass then yes, it only consists of England, Scotland and Wales. If you're referring to a country then no. The kingdom of Great Britain's territories includes Ireland along with the previously mentioned states.
The Campbell clan was utterly ruthless. They once in a battle with a rival clan slaughtered 16 thousand of them in a battle. They hanged their bodies on spikes and their blood drained into vast pools on the ground. This why when the British empire needed muscle to fight wars, the Scots were always called upon. In Canada for instance, Scots loyalist regiments single handedly defeated the French and their American allies.
“This royal throne of kings, this sceptered isle, This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, This other Eden, demi-paradise, This fortress built by Nature for herself Against infection and the hand of war, This happy breed of men, this little world, This precious stone set in the silver sea.” ― William Shakespeare
@Black Lesbian Poet When Britain first, at heaven's command Arose from out the azure main Arose arose from out the azure main This was the charter, the charter of the land And guardian angels sang this strain Rule Britannia, Britannia, rule the waves Britons never, never, shall be slaves Rule Britannia, Britannia, rule the waves Britons never, never, shall be slaves Still more majestic shalt thou rise More dreadful from each foreign stroke More dreadful, dreadful from each foreign stroke As the loud blast, the blast that tears the skies Serves but to root thy native oak Rule Britannia, Britannia, rule the waves Britons never, never, shall be slaves Rule Britannia, Britannia, rule the waves Britons never, never, shall be slaves Still more majestic shalt thou rise More dreadful from each foreign stroke More dreadful, dreadful from each foreign stroke As the loud blast, the blast that tears the skies Serves but to root thy native oak Rule Britannia, Britannia, rule the waves Britons never, never, shall be slaves Rule Britannia, Britannia, rule the waves Britons never, never, shall be slaves The Muses, still with freedom found Shall to thy happy coasts repair Shall to thy happy, happy coasts repair Blest isle regardless, with countless beauty places And manly hearts to guard the fair Rule Britannia, Britannia, rule the waves Britons never, never, shall be slaves Rule Britannia, Britannia, rule the waves Britons never, never, shall be slaves 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
Great Britain was established when England and Scotland united under one kingdom between 1706 and 1707 under the Acts of Union 1707. The Kingdom of Great Britain lasted until 1801, when it merged with the Kingdom of Ireland to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland between 1800 and 1801 under the Acts of Union 1800. Also, Ireland is a separate island from Great Britain. You cannot consider it to be part of Great Britain, and it was also not part of the Kingdom of England. It was once under the control of the Anglo-Normans, a lordship known as the Lordship of Ireland, and then when it was a unified kingdom, it was once an English client state until 1707. And Northern Ireland is not part of Great Britain, it is part of the island of Ireland. The full name of the United Kingdom is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
@@adamjd7645 never has been never will be its an impossibility. For a start no one is king or queen of scotland they are king or queen of the scots. I.e they rule over the people not the country
Many of today's supporters of Scottish independence think that the Jacobite Rebellions were, at least in part, about regaining indepenence. The reality was that the Stuart monarchs, after James VI, had been very strong supporters of the Union and had no intention of ever giving back Scotland it's independence.
That is actually incorrect stating that the Stuarts were firm supporter's of the Union Charles I, Charles II, James VII/II did no support or Advocate any such union. In fact James VII told his son Prince James known to history as the Old Pretender James VIII /III to his supporters to keep Scotland and England separate. The only Stuarts that were in favour if a union were James VI/I William II /III and Queen Anne
@@SALeppard According to your opinion at least half of the Stuart monarchs supported the Parliamentry Union. Also the Stuart monarchs had a very bad record for keeping promises made to the Scottish people so any pledges by Bonnie Prince Charlie to end the Union should be treated with mistrust. His determination to march on London showed where his priorities lay. Also, by 1745 most of Scotland was pro-Hanoverian and pro-Union, with good cause. Scotland was at the beginning of an age of prosperity. Trade with the Americas and India, the beginnings of the future industrial revolution and the intellectual freedom of the Enlightenment were all on the horizon.
@@molecatcher3383 incorrect the only two who activity did wad James VI and Queen Anne who was the last monarch of the House of Stuart and if both Scotland and England. William II/III did not actively support it although he thought it was a good idea. 5 of the 7 Stuart duel monarchs did not advocate or support it.
Whataboutery doesn’t change the fact that it was a conflict largely fought over dissolving the union. Your belief of what the Stuart’s would have done after a success is founded on what ifs not fact. The urge to go for London has nothing to do with the constitutional intentions of the Stuart’s but the only way of winning the uprising
The opportunities which the East India company opened up.. by their conquests of the East India and SEA, also drew a lot of the Scots. Many of the early conquestars of the late 17- Early 18th century were Scots.. the opportunity opening up only because Scotland was UK
The kingdom of Ireland with its own parliament existed from the 16th century until the act of union in 1801 creating the UK. Ireland geographically cannot be apart of Great Britain
ARTHUR: How do you do, good lady. I am Arthur, King of the Britons. Who's castle is that? WOMAN: King of the who? ARTHUR: The Britons. WOMAN: Who are the Britons? ARTHUR: Well, we all are. we're all Britons and I am your king. WOMAN: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective. DENNIS: You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship. A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--
The UK is amazing because of its unique history and its eventual togetherness with its ensuing unshakable ties. Love the Scots, and their lands, culture, history, influence (massive) , we need them at our side is so many ways including culturally , however if they eventually choose to leave then so be it, its their chosen destiny they would have to be accepted with grace, but I want them to stay, i think we need each other more then even now, we need their canny intelligence, their traits of which there are so many.
The Darien Scheme may have bankrupted some of the aristocracy who invested in it, but it did not bankrupt the country. At the union, Scotland, which had no national debt, helped to pay off England's national debt in exchange for access to English trade routes, something it could not have done had it been bankrupt. Also, James VI was not the first British King. Only monarchs after 1707 can be called British so Anne was the first British monarch and George I was the first British King.
Agreed, it didn't leave Scotland bankrupt but almost a 1/4 of all Scottish liquidity disappeared overnight. There were widespread riots and it had a huge impact on the economy of Scotland. The Scottish govt got some.compensation from the treaty of union (£388000) specifically for the scheme but the average Scot got nothing, The fact compensation was part of the treaty suggests it was a contributing factor in the decision
@@MrMabenson1 The "compensation" was only given to the Lords who had lost money in the Darien Scheme, and they only got it on condition that they voted in favour of union. "Bought and sold for English gold, such a parcel of rogues in a nation" as the Bard put it. The riots were against the union and because of the roits outside Parliament House the treaty had to be signed in the cellar of the Tolbooth Jail.
Scotland was not broke. The Darien Scheme, which was a private venture and had nothing to do with the Scottish Government, may have bankrupted some of the aristocracy who invested in it, but it did not bankrupt the country. At the union, Scotland, which had no national debt, helped to pay off England's national debt in exchange for access to English trade routes, something it could not have done had it been bankrupt.
Scotlands national debt was 150k. England's debt at the time was over 2 million. Not to mention both population sizes were similar. The union happened because Scotland passed an act allowing the Scottish Parliament to pick their next king even if Catholic and Queen Anne didn't like that.
@@Challis1989 England and wales had a population of 5.1 mil and Scotland was 1.2 mil ......so no i would say the population sizes weren't similar, would say it was nearly 5x different. also scotland was broke due to a much smaller economy, and broke its economy on its colony in central america. Debt doesnt matter as much if your economy can handle it, dunno where you got the 150k I read it was 110k which was more than scotlands normal revenue.
For sure, the Darien Scheme was an economic disaster for Scotland. The fact is portrayed as the last hope for Scotland to stay afloat by joining England. Yet, there's a historical fact that every historian neglects the one that since the Union of the Crowns in 1603 the English navy blocked any ship coming to or from Scotland, which diminished considerably imports and exports for Scotland. This was a long-term plan of starvation by the English, to force the Scots into a union. In the 17th century, England generated 5 to 7 million £ revenues, while Scotland's was barely around 160.000£. I guess the revenues could have been higher if the English navy wouldn't have limited trade with Scotland. Then how did the Scottish parliament end up signing the act of union? Well, some members had precious lands in northern England, that threatened to be reclaimed by the English nobility should the boost for the union wasn't effective, and other members were offered gold in exchange for support for the union. That's how our legendary Scottish writer exposes it "bought and sold for English gold". On May 1st, 1707, 106 out of the 175 MSPs voted in favor of the union. Without asking the population! A month followed after the signing, then Glasgow was full of riots and anti-union protests. Of course, democracy wasn't such a thing back in those days... I've read the history of Scotland, my dad offered me the book for my 17th birthday, then I read that not only Scots didn't want a union with England cause they didn't want English settlers, but the English didn't want it either cause they didn't want Scottish immigrants! Indeed, this British union has always been based on the elite of the British Isles binding together for the greedy control over the land, nothing else. Even today, Scotland is the country with the most privately owned land on earth: half our land mass is shared and owned between some 432 billionaires. Finally, there has been the massacre of Culloden. The last battle fought on Britain's soil. Gosh how confusing would it have been, to pick a side: should I fight for a German monarch, or a Franco-Italian one? Anyway, that's it all
I don't thinks it is as much as 432 billionaires, the numbers are kept low because of a Scottish law that forbids the fragmentation of Scottish land in order to keep it in prestine condition. It is better to moniter 30 billianaires and their land than 432. You can't just buy a bit of land, you have to buy the entire estate and not sell bits of it off to smaller land owners.
The Darien Scheme, which was a private enterprise and had nothing to do with the Scottish Government, may have bankrupted the aristocracy who invested in it, but it did not bankrupt the country. At the union, Scotland, which had no national debt, helped to pay off England's national debt in exchange for access to English trade routes, something it could not have done had it been bankrupt.
@@Dunsapie £400,000 was invested into the company of Scotland at a time when there was believed to only be £800,000 in the full country. Scots from all walks of life invested in the company and were financially ruined when the company went Bankrupt. Also important to note that the man who wrote the ‘equivalent’ of what England would pay to Scotland for the acts of Union was William Patterson, founder of the company of Scotland.
I was surprised when you said people still debate if the union benefited them and was a good idea. The answer is absolutely yes. Exponentially. No war on either border, secured by the Royal Navy, and Scotland having unrestricted access to the largest empire the world would ever see. I'd say Scotland benefited far more than England, who itself had benefited greatly for security reasons.
It obviously benefited them but it’s up for debate if it still benefits them. If they never united and Scotland kept its independence, it is undeniable that Scotland would be a much better country today. At the time of union the empire was very small, it only grew after Scotland joined. So they didn’t have access to the largest empire, they essentially were a major player in creating it.
What a lot of tripe, firstly what empire, England never had an empire and the UK(GB) foundation was created via the three crowns, a Scottish King. Also the American declaration of independence is no more than a modification of the Scottish declaration of Arbroath. Likewise Canadas founding father was also a Scot. The Scot spawned hegemonies, we aren't recipients of them or as you said mere beneficiaries. The Union of the Crowns (Scottish Gaelic: Aonadh nan Crùintean; Scots: Union o the Crouns) was the accession of James VI of Scotland to the thrones of England and Ireland, and the consequential unification for some purposes (such as overseas diplomacy) of the three realms under a single monarch on 24 March 1603. The Union of Crowns followed the death of Elizabeth I of England, the last monarch of the Tudor dynasty, who was James's unmarried and childless first cousin twice removed. The Union was a personal or dynastic union, with the Crown of Scotland remaining both distinct and separate-despite James's best efforts to create a new "imperial" throne of "Great Britain". England and Scotland continued as autonomous states sharing a monarch with Ireland (with an interregnum in the 1650s during the republican unitary state of the Commonwealth and the Protectorate), until the Acts of Union of 1707 during the reign of the last Stuart monarch, Anne. US Senate Resolution 155 of 10 November 1997 states that the Declaration of Arbroath, the Scottish Declaration of Independence, was signed on April 6, 1320 and the American Declaration of Independence was modeled on that inspirational document. "Whereas April 6 has a special significance for all Americans, and especially those Americans of Scottish descent, because the Declaration of Arbroath, the Scottish Declaration of Independence, was signed on April 6, 1320 and the American Declaration of Independence was modeled on that inspirational document; Whereas this resolution honors the major role that Scottish Americans played in the founding of this Nation, such as the fact that almost half of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were of Scottish descent, the Governors in 9 of the original 13 States were of Scottish ancestry, Scottish Americans successfully helped shape this country in its formative years and guide this Nation through its most troubled times." www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/senate-resolution/155/all-info Declaration of Arbroath (Popular sovereignty) - That the independence of Scotland was the prerogative of the Scottish people, rather than the King of Scots. That government is contractual and that kings can be chosen by the community rather than by God alone. Popular sovereignty or the sovereignty of the people's rule; is the principle that the authority of a state and its government is created and sustained by the consent of its people. Sir John Alexander Macdonald (11 January 1815 - 6 June 1891) was the first Prime Minister of Canada (1867-1873, 1878-1891). The dominant figure of Canadian Confederation, he had a political career which spanned almost half a century. Macdonald was born in Scotland; when he was a boy his family immigrated to Kingston in the Province of Upper Canada (today in eastern Ontario). As a lawyer he was involved in several high-profile cases and quickly became prominent in Kingston, which elected him in 1844 to the legislature of the Province of Canada. By 1857, he had become premier under the colony's unstable political system. In 1864, when no party proved capable of governing for long, Macdonald agreed to a proposal from his political rival, George Brown, that the parties unite in a Great Coalition to seek federation and political reform. Macdonald was the leading figure in the subsequent discussions and conferences, which resulted in the British North America Act and the birth of Canada as a nation on 1 July 1867. Macdonald was the first Prime Minister of the new nation, and served 19 years; only William Lyon Mackenzie King served longer.
@@barbarossa5700 The acts of Union took place a century after the first ENGLISH colony was established and part of the whole thing was that Scotland wanted to get into the colonial game. The two nations shared a monarch in between this time but that doesn't make them a united kingdom and until then the colonies would be English ventures.
@@user-pv8lp6ht3z That's true but the SNP are trying to distance itself from the not small part played by Scotland in not only creating the Empire but running it.
The Kingdom is the United Kingdom of Great Britain (the island where England, Scotland and Wales is located) and Northern Ireland. UK= 4 countries, GB= 3 countries.
not at that time...the UK came in the second acts of union, a century later. Wales and Ireland (and let's not forget Cornwall) were still under the limbo of being considered a wider part of the Kingdm of England--albeit being even more nuanced, that is just a quick and dirty summarized explanation.
@msmissy6888 Um, yeah, that is pretty common knowledge. I know the Anglo-Saxon history, and before, pretty well; surely in equal manner to you. I am confused why you thought that was something someone doesn't know.
An Irish perspective: So the King of Scotland took over as King of England also in 1603. England then heroically resisted Scottish domination for over a century, but in 1707 England finally gave in due to Scottish persistence. Now, in the 21st Century there is a movement in Scotland to give the English back their independence, but most English people are no longer interested. Don't let's get started on Northern Ireland!
Ahhhhhhh I'm conflicted about leaving the Union, I feel like Scotland and England would both just be diminished. There has been good parts and bad parts to the Union and many Pro's and many Cons to leaving. I hate Westminster but I've not met many English who like it either. I’ve got so many English friends and I like the idea of unity and being something bigger. But I fucking hate Westminster and I hate the ridiculous tendencies of some who vote SNP. Great video though guys.
Solidarity forever, the union between our nations must continue and we must fix the country together leaving will be a horrible play for you Scots many are leaving due to Brexit but does nobody see the Irony in leaving the Union beacuse of us leaving another one?, I see you Scots as fellow country men and brothers we have bled in the trenches together we should not break the Union at any cost!
Your channel has truly changed my life. i've been studying and researching about crypto for a while now, do to the economy crisis and i got stuck at some point on the learning curve. now i can say I'm truly improving my understanding of this whole new world and making great profit weekly, all thanks to you
@@Michael-xe7xoMy first investment with her gave me profit of over $24,000 Us dollars and ever since then she has never failed to deliver and I can even say she's the most sincere broker I have known
I remember being in Texas and having to explain that we're not arrogant by calling ourselves 'Great' when it was put to me, it's that 'Great' refers to the largest major land mass of the islands (Comprising Wales, England, Scotland) it's not 'Great' in the sense of 'were amazing' lol
@@spencerferrier3857 yes it's as if there would be no practical reason for a Texan to know such a fact to get along in every day life. What brutes these Texans are.
Great! Pls also keep in mind the fact that 'Slavery, Colonialism & Colonization' are all evil things done by evildoers. Around fifty 50 nations fell under British Colonialism; while around twenty five 25 nations under French Colonialism. - In the Colonial era all Anglo Western Colonizers did in their Colonies worldwide was build infrastructure, such as roads and ports so that they could ship abundant natural mineral resources, raw materials back to Europe to make fine goods, since there hardly has any mineral resources in Europe. That is what Colonialism is all about; "Pillage and Plunder" at will. For instance, it is agreed upon the fact that Africa in general has progressed a lot more in the past 20-30 years than 200 years of Western Colonialism there. Besides, World organization such as United Nations, UN was helped founded, with cleverly drawn charters, by the West; only after they have had enough of practicing centuries-long global Slavery, Colonization and Colonialism; in such a way so as to; - keep their accumulated wealth to themselves, - their accumulated crimes not to get prosecuted by their former victims. 😔 "Anglo caused most of the world's problems." - David Cameron, former British Prime Minister “British society has never been cleansed of the filth of imperialism.” - Salman Rushdie The fact that they need to repent & repay their sins & crimes. After all, it's "a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do" thing. Like I said, repay and repent your long overdue crimes and sins... Remember the saying, "a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do". "History is written by the victors and liars." ~ Napoleon Bonaparte Speaking of 'the rule of Law', may I ask where is the rule of law when the Anglo West is practicing centuries-long global Slavery, Colonialism & Colonization? May I ask when will the West face justice for their notorious centuries-long global crimes of Slavery, Colonialism and Colonization from North/South America to Australia/New Zealand? Speaking of 'crime'.., remember, it’s only a crime if you lose. The Anglo Western bloc had been on the winning side for about three centuries. Obviously, they couldn't care less about the "crimes" any more. 😔
@@blackcat2628zd Well at certain points in history France had the region but not today and unless you mean Germanic tribes, what are you talking about?
Great Britain is the name of the island that England, Scotland and Wales are on. The name of the State is “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.
As per the SNP, England kidnapped the entire land of Scotland, and is to be blamed for every single problem Scotland faces, especially the problems that seem to stem from Nicola Sturgeon England is especially to blame for those problems.
@@Bluesfan1780 I think he’s being sarcastic. He’s basically saying the SNP believe that everything is the fault of England. He’s not wrong if that is what he’s saying. A meteor could hit Scotland and the SNP would still blame it on England.
@@Bluesfan1780 Hello, pirate. How's it like having had the second biggest empire ever, since your people never monopolized a single ocean whereas my people, by the grace of God, monopolized most? Felipe II: owner of countless lands PLUS MOST OCEANS INT HE COSMOS! Victoria: owner of more lands 'cause of more wastelands, PLUS... never mind. Not one ocean dominated. See all the French islands in every ocean. See the Spanish wiping us out in Cartagena de Indias even when they were weaker at sea.
POV, despite the myth Scotland was not “broke” although some rich aristocrats lost a lot of their capital. England was however very broke with a huge national debt. Which Scotland had to shoulder as part of the Union. England paid a sum “the equivalent” to many of those who had lost in the Darien venture (presumably financed with more borrowing). This was essentially compensation - a bribe - to get these same nobles and aristocrats to vote for Union.
I read about this like a few years before but what I remembered is simply that the House of Hanover does not wanted Scotland to secede from the union. I'm glad to hear more about this. But still, the fact that they do not wanted Scotland to secede should be mention as well.
@@QuietManUK Not only was Scotland not broke it had zero debt. The treaty of union actually states that Scotland had zero debt but will take on a share of Englands massive debt, but would receive sixty thousand pounds further down the line to offset any losses incurred. Scotland received sixty percent of this.
@@SpaceHCowboy that's what I observe. Mostly Glaswegians speak Scottish Gaelic while Edinburghers speak Scots. But this is just my prediction if the two languages are equivalent to separate regions.
Scottish nationalists will obviously disagree but how successful the union is isn't debatable even 300 years later.Scotland was largely transformed into a modern state after the union,Britain built an empire and started the industrial revolution from which Scotland helped build and take part in.
Yes Scotland helped but we have never been an equal partner per capita at the outset we never got a fair amount of mps when both populations were similar sized.
@@Challis1989 the union was never to be an equal partner but of merger. Every country always has a region treated not very fairly, that is the cost of unity.
@gazibizi9504 and a cost that can be rectified. This is the 2000s not 1700s we should be striving for better not keeping others down. The union destroyed much of Scottish culture and while the empire made it wealthy was the cost worth it?
@@Challis1989 the union was the creation of a unified nation state the United Kingdom of Great Britain it was never a "partnership" within every nation state there are more dominant areas even within Scotland itself many people in Shetland and Orkney think Edinburgh and the central lowlands are too dominant in Scotland as well and let's not mention the EU that scottish nationalists are so keen to join Germany and France have way say than Portugal or Denmark....the scots that emigrated and colonised what became Scotland wiped out the original pictish culture how far do you want to go back with this?
@waynegoodman3345 I know you're talking nonsense and can't be taken seriously when you say that only the nationalists want in the eu. They make up only half the population spread across multiple parties yet Scotland voted over 60% to stay in Europe meaning unionists are also in favour of the eu. The original Scots wiped out some of the picts and Caledonians and merged with others. In the south the brthyonic Scottish natives survived for hundreds of years after that. As to the eu each country gets a fair vote we don't in the uk. I don't dispute France and Germany have the influence as a major powerful nation but it is easier for Norway and a collection of nations to vote and block bills that they want than should Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland want to stop English legislation
This is what happens when you get an American to research Scottish history - you get a cleansed, anglified version which cites the Darian scheme as the primary reason for the union of nations, yet completely ignores the Alien Act of 1705.
Tbf that would probably call for going into detail about the political blackmailing between the two parliaments, and they wanted to keep this a ten minute video so I can't say I blame them. They didn't go into much detail about other aspects of the story either. Also, I can't really see how this is anglified; they mentioned that the crown pushed to collapse the clan system and may have sabotaged the Darian scheme to favour England as well. It presents the Darian scheme as a sort of killing blow but by no means the primary reason. Could you explain a bit further, please?
@@joshygoldiem_j2799 I agree there was a lot of tit for tat Parliamentary acts passed, so why concentrate on one to the exclusion of the others? The 1704 Act of Security, the resulting Alien Act 1705, followed by the Act of Union 1707 were all as a result of the 1701 Act of Settlement, which said the English heir would continue to rule Scotland in the event of the monarch’s death, and was passed without Scotland’s permission. Scotland was never a voluntary partner, and it’s time we stopped perpetuating that lie.
@@stuart8343 Scotland's permission? Scotland including England ceased to exist with the union. Westminster was the sole authority until devolution. Scots, English were all British citizens and enjoyed privileges that came with it.
@@gazibizi9504 - precisely. Scotland lost her national identity because the English King threatened to seize Scottish noble lands if they didn’t capitulate. Scottish commoners were overwhelmingly against the formation of the union, but the nobles didn’t want to risk forfeiture of their land, and so pledged their allegiance to a foreign king. England has been an imperialist bully for its entire existence. “As long as a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be subjected to the lordship of the English. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.” - Declaration of Arbroath, 1320. I am one of those hundred, and I *will* see an independent Scotland in my lifetime ✊🏽🏴
@@ahsanurr4219 54%. Many of the arguments from the pro-remaining side no longer apply; e.g. access to the EU. The youth yearn for aesthetic and tribal identity as a counterbalance to the encroachment and excesses of modernity, and independence finds its greatest support among the 18-24 year age bracket. England proper has increasingly huge cultural and other problems that the elite of that country--among corrupt institutions like Westminster firmly in the pocket of international high finance--adamantly refuses to deal with; the English do not need our presence, our needs, and our local issues further complicating matters; 5million Scots cannot save 50million Englishmen.
As someone who is 50% Scottish and 50% English, it makes me sad to even think about Scotland leaving. But I felt sad about Brexit too. Hopefully a reformation of the House of Lords, being parallel to something like a Senate of more equiable representation of the unique identities (maybe England's own devolution even too) can remedy this from happening.
Hell NO! The people of Scotland shall be free once again! You are not truly Scottish even if your DNA says otherwise if you support Westminster controlling over the Scottish. Scotland shall be free once again.
In my mind the only question I have is what would Scotland offer the world to be worth supporting? I genuinely don't know what Scotland could offer the EU or NATO to keep itself safe. I could see NI joining Ireland but even that's not completely set in stone.
As a resident of England and growing up 1 hour from the Scottish border in the Lake Distract my school taught me nothing of this. Quite shameful really.
Scotland was a failed colonial power they realised they could only become a successful power by joining England...the union transformed a largely rural backwater on the edge of europe into a modern industrial world power. Anyone who says otherwise is just trying to re write history.
Ultimately, the British state was put together for empire, not altruism, the key investors who lost in the failed Darien scheme were the people who received payment, not Scotland, whatever way you look at it, it was a bribe for those with a vote were lured into taking. The people of Scotland were not bailed out as is often claimed, they had no vote & would not have voted for union. Scots would have got through that difficult period as we always did, we would have ended up with a more diverse economy not relying on coal, steel & iron as the main stay of the economy though, that may have been part of it?. Having a common bond with English people is not the same as having a common bond with the British state. The overarching reason for union from an English perspective was Scotland's strategic value, to this day that is the main stay of union, we certainly didn't benefit much from oil & gas in the north sea off Scotland, it paid off UK debt & built the M25 whilst tradesmen like myself were leaving in our tens of thousands to work in London. That certainly didn't happen in Norway, their people weren't leaving in the tens of thousands & they have an oil fund, the UK people don't & the chancellor Nigel Lawson's justification for there being no oil fund absolutely summed up the Thatcher era, they turned Britain into a low wage low skill economy relying on access to debt & the dumbing down of engineering excellence, we'll just import all our skills? A piggin disgrace that has left the UK short of the very skills every competent nation requires. The Barnett formula was introduced just as oil & gas was starting to flow, people forget, or don't even understand, that was a buy off for using oil & gas to benefit the City of London usurpers. Further, Scotland has about 9% of the island of Britain's population but 30% of the land mass & 60% of the seas. It is clearly bound to take more public funds to manage these outlying communities & since close to 10% of the population are English, especially in dispersed in the outlying communities, it obviously isn't all beneficial for only Scots.
Literally found an error in the first 20 seconds Northern Ireland is not, never has been, and never will be part of Great Britain. Great Britain is the island. Northern Ireland is part of the *United Kingdom* but not Great Britain. Hence "The United Kingdom Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland" Saying that Northern Ireland is part of Great Britain is like saying Greece is part of Asia.
Yeah, I think the labelling on the map regarding the island of Ireland is confusing. The colouring makes sense since it gives clear indication that Ireland was subject to the English/British monarchy. However, the placement of the text 'England' is confusing considering England has never claimed that Ireland was England. That is the same when it comes to the text 'Great Britain'. Even the current Union is called 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland'. I understand simplification but it's not that difficult a concept to grasp & mislabelling can cause confusion. Also, someday, people will just be considerate & not use the term 'British Isles'. It's unnecessary.
The term British Isles is part and parcel of antiquated notions of the British empire which are long gone. The Brits use this term for Ireland to cause conflict as it's a political term. Even UK law uses the term British Islands to refer to the UK, Channel Islands, and Isle of Man as a single collective entity, but does not include Ireland. The manufactured term was introduced as the British Isles in the 16th/17th centuries by English and Welsh writers for both propaganda and political reasons. The term itself was always controversial to the Irish, but became more so after the breakup of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1922. The term is rejected by the Irish government, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Irish people. The term was formally disavowed in September 2005 by the Irish Government when Foreign Minister Dermot Ahern famously stated: "The British Isles is not an officially recognised term in any legal or inter-governmental sense. It is without any official status. The Government, including the Department of Foreign Affairs, does not use this term." We reject it. It's just another manufactured British term to establish some sort of false dominance over another nation of people on a different island…
@@IrishLadASMRThe commenter is referring to the fact that constitutionally at the time the Kingdom of Ireland existed. It was a separate country from England and the two were simply in personal Union. Although the English, and later, the British Government had powers over the Irish Parliament up to the latter 1700s, Ireland was constitutionally a separate state. It therefore is misleading to show Scotland as separate from England pre-1707 and yet show Ireland the same as England
@@deshaun9473 the way you said in it your original comment seemed like you think the Britain invented all those things, well it did not, all those things existed since the Roman era. Britain is constitutional monarchy, the monarch did not have that much power, parliament did, females were allowed to become monarch though. Every European country committed g*nocide, but English people were also g*nocided against during the Viking era. Britain literally abolished the sl@ve trade, oh and sl@very was never legal in Britain because parliament never bothered to make it legal. So? Every major European country in the 1700s colonised, Britain wasn’t even the first country to begin colonisation Portugal was. By your same logic every European country’s history sucks right? No you need too.
@@zacha4812 He’s probably one of those Indians who are brainwashed by the education system but yet has no problem with other colonial empires especially France who owned a city there.
Scotland has experienced incredible economic growth under the union, it's crazy that in modern days there are so many separatist nationalists that want to divide the UK
@@sandman31d68 except there was a vote and people voted against. Even polls still favor the UK. That is actual democracy, not repeating a vote until the cringe minority wins
@@sandman31d68 That isn't democracy. Scotland joined the union in 1707 and why should it now be allowed to leave? Scotland refusing to acknowledge the brexit vote is not democracy. They got a vote on independence in 2014 and they chose to stay that's democracy.
I think American history is way less complex. The US has never been a monarchy, never had a revolution or coup d'etat and it has never been a dictatorship, neither a fascist nor a communist. American history starts with the first English colonies on the East coast, because we know so little about what the Indians did before the Europeans arrived
@@Ch-xk5tv Even then, I'd declare 'American' history an extension of British history. Even the American War of Independence was one group of Brits, fighting another group of Brits to create their own system of governance in a far away land. Only the British knew how to beat the British.
this is very interesting even the great britian's history like scotland use to be the great rival of the english and then they just became part of the same country like that is very much pakistan becomming part of india we will not like it but then england’s need for political safeguards against French attacks and a possible Jacobite restoration, for which Scotland might serve as a conveniently open back door.
The people of 1707 never had a referendum to join to a union with England. Scotland should be Independent defacto. Also Ireland should be one Reunited nation. Northern Ireland is a part of Ireland.
Oh Jesus Christ. Did the English people have a vote on it though? This wasn’t a time where there was political representation like there is today. Arguments for independence are fine especially in regards to the last 100 years but please remain historically accurate. Whether Northern Ireland wants a United Ireland is a decision that’s up to them.
@@jasonameh8985 Historically Scotland was a sovereign nation with a king and parliament, Ireland everyone can see that it is ONE land piece one language one religion Christian, Only the dominant England transplanted their people & made up a Northern Ireland, like the English created chaos in Kashmir & Palestine.
@@benharis1956 Love how you just ignored what I said and switched topics lol. Oh the dominant England transplanted people? What about the Ulster Scots who were Scottish low landers who were sent to Ireland. Do you know about Edward Carson, the Irish Unionist who’s family came from Dumfries, Scotland? You know who was the King at the time of the plantations? James VI and I, oh he was born in Scotland, I thought he was ENGLISH smh.
Oh yeah Arthur Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary who made the Balfour declaration that urged the need for a Jewish state in Palestine was also Scottish if you didn’t know. The division of India was negotiated not forced, either heard of the Muslim League? Their aim was to establish a Pakistan separate from the Hindu majority. The division wasn’t a smooth affair unfortunately it lead to the deaths of 100,000s but that was negotiated by the British State and Empire, not English. Research this and come back with history that isn’t political agenda, it makes your argument weak :).
Actually Scotland nearly went bankrupt when we had to buy back an island from the Vikings also didn't say we went bankrupt fool say we nearly went bankrupt
Can someone tell me, Dublin was previously known as The English Pale, directly ruled by England. So the Irish Unionist and Loyalist for the UK was there. Why it wasn’t incorporated in Northern Ireland when they opted to stay within the union during Irish Republic establishment?
The English Pale existed during the middle ages by 1920 Dublin was mostly Catholic and believed in Irish independence. In the early 17th century many people were moved to Ulster from the English/Scottish borderlands that is why that area ended up with a protestant majority and decided to remain in the UK
Ireland = Irish people = Irish culture = Irish language (now that is enough clues for you!) Now having read the above... that is why we have always fought, resisted and never bent knee to British rule. Do you think we fought British rule for centuries for the laugh of it or something? When people fight, they fight for a good reason and when a nation fights it's because something was taken away from them! After the Norman/English Invasion of Ireland in the 1100s, we then had Planters arrive as per The Plantations in 16th- and 17th-century which involved the confiscation of Irish-owned land by the English Crown and the colonisation of land with settlers from Britain. We fought back: The two Desmond Rebellions took place in 1569-1573 and 1579-1583 to *fight against the threat of the extension of the English government* over the province. The successful Battle of Clontibret was *fought against the British* in County Monaghan in 1595. The successful Battle of the Yellow Ford was *fought against the British* in County Armagh in 1598. The Nine Years' War, sometimes called Tyrone's Rebellion took place in Ireland from 1593 to 1603. It was fought between an Irish alliance to *fight against English rule in Ireland.* The Rebellion of 1641 took place when Irish Catholics were being threatened by expansion of the anti-Catholic English Parliament and Scottish Planters and they *rebelled against English and Protestant domination.* The Irish Rebellion of 1798 was a major uprising *against British rule in Ireland.* (The Society of United Irishmen was led primarily by liberal Protestants). The Irish wanted an end to anti-Catholic discrimination, greater Irish self-governance, and to roll back the Plantations of Ireland. The Irish rebellion of 1803 was launched by Irish republicans *against British rule in Ireland* The Easter Rising of 1916 was piloted by Irish republicans *against British rule in Ireland* with the aim of establishing an independent Irish Republic. The civil rights movement in the early 1960s challenged the inequality and discrimination against ethnic Irish Catholics that was perpetrated by the Ulster Protestant community. Derry activists' marched on the 5 October 1968 in Derry, but were attacked by the RUC and loyalists. THAT IS A SNAPSHOT OF HOW WE HAVE FOUGHT AND RESISTED BOTH BRITISH RULE AND DISCRIMINATION BY THE UNIONIST COMMUNITY!
Question - How does the annexation of Wales in 1536 mean Wales magically doesn’t exist? When Germany took over France it didn’t all of a sudden become Germany. Wales is tied to England via the Tudor annexation, and not English Conquest! Owain Glyndwr Installed autonomy to Wales from 1400 to 1536.
Germany didn’t annex France. England annex wales and incorporated it into the english legal system. Before it was the Principality of wales was an english client kingdom/junior partner
It came about through Henry Tudor. He was a Welshman. He became king of England with the support of the Welsh. Wales was united with England and it was called the Kingdom of England.
May it break. Scotland FREE! You're second-class citizens in your own country? You don't speak a Scottish language! You speak the language of your masters! Your capital is not in Scotland! It's in the land of your masters! Why play second-fiddle when you can be DA BOSS?
The person making these videos has form on this. Any Welsh history is omitted from the narrative. Look at their video titled ‘How England was Formed’. The animation shades the map of the British Isles different with colours and labels to show the development of England and its relations with Scotland, Ireland etc. But Wales is not even mentioned. It remains as if nothing at all was happening there while England was developing. Astonishing considering the biggest earthwork border in Europe was erected by Offa to delineate England’s western border with Wales, not to mention the constant conflict, warfare, alliances etc over the centuries. At best they are a lazy and negligent historian, at worst they are a bigoted revisionist.
@@Knappa22 Wales was part of the Kingdom of England that's why Still see remains of that today with Wales n England having the same legal/court system while both scotlands and northern Ireland is slightly different
@The Philosoraptor Science says guilty unless proven innocent. You put the cart before the horse. The onus is on you to prove raptors existed. Your sources argument is just AD VERECVNDIAM (a fallacy 'cause you're illogical) with an argument from incredulity fallacy (another fallacy 'cause your'e extra illogical). You also distort my argument because you're very very illogical.
Ireland was never United with England or Scotland, just taken over & treated us like slaves similar to its former African colonies. Not anymore, never again & soon the North will be annexed into the Republic, Scotland at some point will cut away from the union & Wales will follow leaving England on its own.
Having the word "England" sprawled over part of Ireland is 1. Highly Annnoying for an Irish person. 2. Historically totally incorrect. The Kingdom of England never included Ireland. Ireland was a various times the Lordship of Ireland and then the Kingdom of Ireland. After 1801 Ireland became part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. This ceased to exist with Irish independence and the formation of the Irish Free State and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Just thought I'd clarify.
Technically, it won't actually even be independence as we understand it. Scotland won't be independent from The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as Great Britain will cease to exist once Scotland dissolves that particular union.
I'm an African and have an explanation. James 5th of Scoth wanted to keep the old link between Great Britain isle (Scotland+Wales) and Brittany in actual France.
are you telling me that the union of England and Scotland started because Henry the VIII couldn't get a healthy male heir and their daughters refused to get laid ?
Mary was desperate to have an heir and suffered from a false pregnancy. Over a year after her pregnancy was announced but no baby appeared, she was mocked by rumours she'd given birth to a lap dog. Elizabeth I didn't marry cos marrying would've meant losing the throne in favour of her husband. The same thing happened to her sister Mary. Upon her marriage to Phillip II, he became King of England, outranked his wife, signed Bills into law and sat on the throne in Parliament. Had Mary given birth to a child, the marriage agreement required England to become part of Spain so Philip could rule Spain and England as one country. It wasn't until Queen Anne, over 100 years later, that a woman could become Queen without her husband taking the throne from her.
@@STEINLAR "As someone living in Scotland" you don't have a choice in the matter so stfu................... This is for the will of the Scottish people you have no right to even have a though on the subject at hand!
@Techstorm 123 This is very wrong. We Scots actually don't want to become independent. The majority of us that aren't braindead small minded nationalists understand the Union is extremely beneficial to us. We will never embrace terrorists like the IRA, we don't forget the children they blew up in our country and we never will.
Scotland and England are still two countries and are in a Treaty of Union similar to the treaty that Britain joined with the European Union but Scotland is being treated as a colony which needs to be addressed as soon possible
It's in a historical context though. At that time Ireland was under English/British rule. At the end the video shows the map of the modern day UK correctly, without Ireland.
I could find it highly offensive that you think Dublin is a part of Gaelige Eire, it's really the Viking lands of Olaf Guthfrithson who was beaten when he invaded England with Constantine II and Owain of Strathclyde...
Isadore- we have some water obstacles.. I wont leave Sully- so if its not water access- then I complete 3 hour point checks.. I could, but I dont want too- Sully is my prioty- If you commit to an exclsuive commitment- then thats the commintment that you make.
Great Britain is not a kingdom, the UK is a kingdom. Great Britain is the name of the largest island within the British Isles. The British Isles consists of around 100 or so islands off the Northwest coast of Europe, most of them small.
@@JJaqn05 You totally dense.... There has never been one country called Great Britain p.s this absolute sausage jockey actually said "Scotland isn't a country" kid.... Why you replying to people when clearly you are brain dead give up!
But we can't call you United Kingdomese, United Kingdomers or UKers. It would also sound ridiculous to call you United Kingdomians. You're British, no matter if your Island is British or Irish. It is not very common to say "Britons and Northern Irish" either. Additionally: Why are people from the Falkland Islands or Gibraltar called "British", even though they don't live on the British Isles.
The union of 1707 only merge the crowns of Scotland and England to form Kingdom of GB. The -Lordship- Kingdom of Ireland remains separate until the Acts of Union in 1801 when the UK is formed.
Exactly, i felt something was wrong
The video is titled "How was The Kingdom of Great Britain Formed" - not UK... also clearly states 'Great Britain' on the 1707 map - there are no inaccuracies.
@@ChunkaMonka map transition at 10:00 and accompanying commentary
@@ChunkaMonka map is wrong.
@@ChunkaMonka Then why is Ireland part of the 1707 map for Great Britain? The Lordship of Ireland was seperate from Great Britain up until the act of union of 1801 when the UK was formed. So there are inaccuracies.
Elizabeth died, her Scottish cousin, who already ruled Scotland, also inherited the English crown. Really not as complicated as people want to make it seem. More like an inevitability, really.
There were two minor things that were ignored. It was an orderly transfer of Power due to the work of Robert Cecil.
One was Mary's conviction of treason could have if Elizabeth decided resulted in attainment or forfeiture of all claims to English lands and titles and Henry VIII's will have precedence to the heirs of his younger sister Mary (the Brandons and later the Grey's) over that of his older sister Margaret (the Stuarts). But in the end you are right it was a nothing burger.
That only meant they shared the same monarchy. They were legally separate and had seperate parliaments until 1707.
@@davidlegrice4207 kinda like the Personal Union of the monarchies of Great Britain and Hanover. It end when Victoria inherited the British crown and her uncle Ernest Augustus inherited the Hanoverian throne.
@@davidlegrice4207 where in my explanation did I refute that? I simply noted how the eventual outcome came about. It makes obvious sense that, at some point, the governments were merged for the sake of uniformity in governance.
I would venture a guess that, had occurred earlier, maybe Scotland would have been from where the laws came, being that James was Scottish.
Or, maybe not. It could have been a matter of the closer proximity to the mainland that London ended up being chosen. But, all I said was the death of Elizabeth gave James both kingdoms.
Plus you got the new world who you think helped kick the english out if America..
We left them
Wexwere to never ve freinds. You dont claim war say your kand our land..
Then start holding hands again that is definition of listening to the devil..
No taxation without representation
Great Britain is the island comprising of England, Scotland and Wales, it doesn't include Ireland.
Geographically yes, politically in 1707-1800 no
@@edelweiss7928 politically in 1707-1800 yes, that is why the flag was not the same as it is after the Irish act of union
Imagine Honshu saying " We are Great Japan!"
Depends on what you're referring to. If you're referring to the landmass then yes, it only consists of England, Scotland and Wales. If you're referring to a country then no. The kingdom of Great Britain's territories includes Ireland along with the previously mentioned states.
@@hoonshiming99 Ireland always remained a separate client kingdom up until the Act of Union, it was never part of the kingdom of Great Britain.
The Campbell clan was utterly ruthless. They once in a battle with a rival clan slaughtered 16 thousand of them in a battle. They hanged their bodies on spikes and their blood drained into vast pools on the ground.
This why when the British empire needed muscle to fight wars, the Scots were always called upon. In Canada for instance, Scots loyalist regiments single handedly defeated the French and their American allies.
“This royal throne of kings, this sceptered isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea.”
― William Shakespeare
@Black Lesbian Poet When Britain first, at heaven's command
Arose from out the azure main
Arose arose from out the azure main
This was the charter, the charter of the land
And guardian angels sang this strain
Rule Britannia, Britannia, rule the waves
Britons never, never, shall be slaves
Rule Britannia, Britannia, rule the waves
Britons never, never, shall be slaves
Still more majestic shalt thou rise
More dreadful from each foreign stroke
More dreadful, dreadful from each foreign stroke
As the loud blast, the blast that tears the skies
Serves but to root thy native oak
Rule Britannia, Britannia, rule the waves
Britons never, never, shall be slaves
Rule Britannia, Britannia, rule the waves
Britons never, never, shall be slaves
Still more majestic shalt thou rise
More dreadful from each foreign stroke
More dreadful, dreadful from each foreign stroke
As the loud blast, the blast that tears the skies
Serves but to root thy native oak
Rule Britannia, Britannia, rule the waves
Britons never, never, shall be slaves
Rule Britannia, Britannia, rule the waves
Britons never, never, shall be slaves
The Muses, still with freedom found
Shall to thy happy coasts repair
Shall to thy happy, happy coasts repair
Blest isle regardless, with countless beauty places
And manly hearts to guard the fair
Rule Britannia, Britannia, rule the waves
Britons never, never, shall be slaves
Rule Britannia, Britannia, rule the waves
Britons never, never, shall be slaves
🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
@@Bluesfan1780 من مع
Was prone to writing a load of shite, that lad Shakespeare.
@@malcolmjcullen said the random internet nobody 🤣
@@malcolmjcullen heresy
Great Britain was established when England and Scotland united under one kingdom between 1706 and 1707 under the Acts of Union 1707. The Kingdom of Great Britain lasted until 1801, when it merged with the Kingdom of Ireland to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland between 1800 and 1801 under the Acts of Union 1800.
Also, Ireland is a separate island from Great Britain. You cannot consider it to be part of Great Britain, and it was also not part of the Kingdom of England. It was once under the control of the Anglo-Normans, a lordship known as the Lordship of Ireland, and then when it was a unified kingdom, it was once an English client state until 1707. And Northern Ireland is not part of Great Britain, it is part of the island of Ireland. The full name of the United Kingdom is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
No such a thing as a kingdom of Great Britain
@@steveng6788 There was. During the period 1 May 1707 until 31 December 1800. Which is what the commenter was saying.
@@adamjd7645 never has been never will be its an impossibility. For a start no one is king or queen of scotland they are king or queen of the scots. I.e they rule over the people not the country
@@steveng6788 Dude, seriously, read a history book. That's what it was called between 1707 & 1800. Take it up with the official record. 🤦♂️
@@adamjd7645 i know my history. If you want to believe a YT video and take that as fact thats upto you.
Many of today's supporters of Scottish independence think that the Jacobite Rebellions were, at least in part, about regaining indepenence. The reality was that the Stuart monarchs, after James VI, had been very strong supporters of the Union and had no intention of ever giving back Scotland it's independence.
Because ideologues don't talk about facts or logic.
That is actually incorrect stating that the Stuarts were firm supporter's of the Union Charles I, Charles II, James VII/II did no support or
Advocate any such union. In fact James VII told his son Prince James known to history as the Old Pretender James VIII /III to his supporters to keep Scotland and England separate. The only Stuarts that were in favour if a union were James VI/I William II /III and Queen Anne
@@SALeppard According to your opinion at least half of the Stuart monarchs supported the Parliamentry Union. Also the Stuart monarchs had a very bad record for keeping promises made to the Scottish people so any pledges by Bonnie Prince Charlie to end the Union should be treated with mistrust. His determination to march on London showed where his priorities lay. Also, by 1745 most of Scotland was pro-Hanoverian and pro-Union, with good cause. Scotland was at the beginning of an age of prosperity. Trade with the Americas and India, the beginnings of the future industrial revolution and the intellectual freedom of the Enlightenment were all on the horizon.
@@molecatcher3383 incorrect the only two who activity did wad James VI and Queen Anne who was the last monarch of the House of Stuart and if both Scotland and England. William II/III did not actively support it although he thought it was a good idea. 5 of the 7 Stuart duel monarchs did not advocate or support it.
Whataboutery doesn’t change the fact that it was a conflict largely fought over dissolving the union. Your belief of what the Stuart’s would have done after a success is founded on what ifs not fact. The urge to go for London has nothing to do with the constitutional intentions of the Stuart’s but the only way of winning the uprising
The opportunities which the East India company opened up.. by their conquests of the East India and SEA, also drew a lot of the Scots. Many of the early conquestars of the late 17- Early 18th century were Scots.. the opportunity opening up only because Scotland was UK
Yes.
I got to know this after reading Śhaśhi Thaṛoor's book _An Era of Darkness_.
_An Era of Darkness_
U mean Great Britain 🇬🇧
The kingdom of Ireland with its own parliament existed from the 16th century until the act of union in 1801 creating the UK. Ireland geographically cannot be apart of Great Britain
Game of Thrones !
Ye but only protestants were allowed to vote and be MPs so Britain basically had all the power
That's why it's was called the United Kingdom... duh!
@@QuietManUK Even today it's united in name only.
@@Dunsapie Disunited Kingdom of Pedo princes and racist queens
I'm so glad you also mentioned Queen Mary II of England! She's not very well known but I love her so much!!
Mary was also Queen Mary II of Scotland
They reached 10th administration tech level and owned the required cores.
based
LMAO
ARTHUR: How do you do, good lady. I am Arthur, King of the Britons.
Who's castle is that?
WOMAN: King of the who?
ARTHUR: The Britons.
WOMAN: Who are the Britons?
ARTHUR: Well, we all are. we're all Britons and I am your king.
WOMAN: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous
collective.
DENNIS: You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship.
A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--
Oh there you go, bringing class into it again
The UK is amazing because of its unique history and its eventual togetherness with its ensuing unshakable ties. Love the Scots, and their lands, culture, history, influence (massive) , we need them at our side is so many ways including culturally , however if they eventually choose to leave then so be it, its their chosen destiny they would have to be accepted with grace, but I want them to stay, i think we need each other more then even now, we need their canny intelligence, their traits of which there are so many.
Na.. you lot drag us back.
Cya.
@@johngibson3770 rebuild the wall and make the scots pay for it.
@@johngibson3770 have fun being in debt without us, adios!
@@johngibson3770 Pity you didn't say that before joining the Union.
I personally support independence, but I still appreciate the very kind comments!
Fun Fact:
Game of Throne's Red Wedding got it's inspiration from The Glencoe Massacre, amongst other famous deadly meals in history.
The Darien Scheme may have bankrupted some of the aristocracy who invested in it, but it did not bankrupt the country. At the union, Scotland, which had no national debt, helped to pay off England's national debt in exchange for access to English trade routes, something it could not have done had it been bankrupt. Also, James VI was not the first British King. Only monarchs after 1707 can be called British so Anne was the first British monarch and George I was the first British King.
Agreed, it didn't leave Scotland bankrupt but almost a 1/4 of all Scottish liquidity disappeared overnight. There were widespread riots and it had a huge impact on the economy of Scotland. The Scottish govt got some.compensation from the treaty of union (£388000) specifically for the scheme but the average Scot got nothing, The fact compensation was part of the treaty suggests it was a contributing factor in the decision
@@MrMabenson1 The "compensation" was only given to the Lords who had lost money in the Darien Scheme, and they only got it on condition that they voted in favour of union. "Bought and sold for English gold, such a parcel of rogues in a nation" as the Bard put it. The riots were against the union and because of the roits outside Parliament House the treaty had to be signed in the cellar of the Tolbooth Jail.
So the compensation did help the signing of the union treaty then 🤔?
@@MrMabenson1 Well it did for those who took their forty pieces of silver.
because scotland was broke, saved your data, you're welcome
Scotland was not broke. The Darien Scheme, which was a private venture and had nothing to do with the Scottish Government, may have bankrupted some of the aristocracy who invested in it, but it did not bankrupt the country. At the union, Scotland, which had no national debt, helped to pay off England's national debt in exchange for access to English trade routes, something it could not have done had it been bankrupt.
Oh look it's another post from the English troll army. As bad as the Russians for trying to change history to your own liking.
Lol
Scotlands national debt was 150k. England's debt at the time was over 2 million. Not to mention both population sizes were similar.
The union happened because Scotland passed an act allowing the Scottish Parliament to pick their next king even if Catholic and Queen Anne didn't like that.
@@Challis1989 England and wales had a population of 5.1 mil and Scotland was 1.2 mil ......so no i would say the population sizes weren't similar, would say it was nearly 5x different.
also scotland was broke due to a much smaller economy, and broke its economy on its colony in central america. Debt doesnt matter as much if your economy can handle it, dunno where you got the 150k I read it was 110k which was more than scotlands normal revenue.
I love your channel keep up the great stuff
Watching this ancient history documentary made me realize I know more about ancient Egypt than I do about my own neighborhood!
For sure, the Darien Scheme was an economic disaster for Scotland. The fact is portrayed as the last hope for Scotland to stay afloat by joining England. Yet, there's a historical fact that every historian neglects the one that since the Union of the Crowns in 1603 the English navy blocked any ship coming to or from Scotland, which diminished considerably imports and exports for Scotland. This was a long-term plan of starvation by the English, to force the Scots into a union.
In the 17th century, England generated 5 to 7 million £ revenues, while Scotland's was barely around 160.000£. I guess the revenues could have been higher if the English navy wouldn't have limited trade with Scotland.
Then how did the Scottish parliament end up signing the act of union? Well, some members had precious lands in northern England, that threatened to be reclaimed by the English nobility should the boost for the union wasn't effective, and other members were offered gold in exchange for support for the union. That's how our legendary Scottish writer exposes it "bought and sold for English gold".
On May 1st, 1707, 106 out of the 175 MSPs voted in favor of the union. Without asking the population!
A month followed after the signing, then Glasgow was full of riots and anti-union protests. Of course, democracy wasn't such a thing back in those days...
I've read the history of Scotland, my dad offered me the book for my 17th birthday, then I read that not only Scots didn't want a union with England cause they didn't want English settlers, but the English didn't want it either cause they didn't want Scottish immigrants! Indeed, this British union has always been based on the elite of the British Isles binding together for the greedy control over the land, nothing else. Even today, Scotland is the country with the most privately owned land on earth: half our land mass is shared and owned between some 432 billionaires.
Finally, there has been the massacre of Culloden. The last battle fought on Britain's soil. Gosh how confusing would it have been, to pick a side: should I fight for a German monarch, or a Franco-Italian one?
Anyway, that's it all
I don't thinks it is as much as 432 billionaires, the numbers are kept low because of a Scottish law that forbids the fragmentation of Scottish land in order to keep it in prestine condition. It is better to moniter 30 billianaires and their land than 432. You can't just buy a bit of land, you have to buy the entire estate and not sell bits of it off to smaller land owners.
Bull Shit
The Darien Scheme, which was a private enterprise and had nothing to do with the Scottish Government, may have bankrupted the aristocracy who invested in it, but it did not bankrupt the country. At the union, Scotland, which had no national debt, helped to pay off England's national debt in exchange for access to English trade routes, something it could not have done had it been bankrupt.
@@Dunsapie £400,000 was invested into the company of Scotland at a time when there was believed to only be £800,000 in the full country. Scots from all walks of life invested in the company and were financially ruined when the company went Bankrupt. Also important to note that the man who wrote the ‘equivalent’ of what England would pay to Scotland for the acts of Union was William Patterson, founder of the company of Scotland.
Why would England support what was a rival power af the time anymore than it would France or Belgium or Spain etc?
I was surprised when you said people still debate if the union benefited them and was a good idea. The answer is absolutely yes. Exponentially. No war on either border, secured by the Royal Navy, and Scotland having unrestricted access to the largest empire the world would ever see. I'd say Scotland benefited far more than England, who itself had benefited greatly for security reasons.
It obviously benefited them but it’s up for debate if it still benefits them. If they never united and Scotland kept its independence, it is undeniable that Scotland would be a much better country today.
At the time of union the empire was very small, it only grew after Scotland joined. So they didn’t have access to the largest empire, they essentially were a major player in creating it.
What a lot of tripe, firstly what empire, England never had an empire and the UK(GB) foundation was created via the three crowns, a Scottish King. Also the American declaration of independence is no more than a modification of the Scottish declaration of Arbroath. Likewise Canadas founding father was also a Scot. The Scot spawned hegemonies, we aren't recipients of them or as you said mere beneficiaries.
The Union of the Crowns (Scottish Gaelic: Aonadh nan Crùintean; Scots: Union o the Crouns) was the accession of James VI of Scotland to the thrones of England and Ireland, and the consequential unification for some purposes (such as overseas diplomacy) of the three realms under a single monarch on 24 March 1603. The Union of Crowns followed the death of Elizabeth I of England, the last monarch of the Tudor dynasty, who was James's unmarried and childless first cousin twice removed. The Union was a personal or dynastic union, with the Crown of Scotland remaining both distinct and separate-despite James's best efforts to create a new "imperial" throne of "Great Britain". England and Scotland continued as autonomous states sharing a monarch with Ireland (with an interregnum in the 1650s during the republican unitary state of the Commonwealth and the Protectorate), until the Acts of Union of 1707 during the reign of the last Stuart monarch, Anne.
US Senate Resolution 155 of 10 November 1997 states that the Declaration of Arbroath, the Scottish Declaration of Independence, was signed on April 6, 1320 and the American Declaration of Independence was modeled on that inspirational document. "Whereas April 6 has a special significance for all Americans, and especially those Americans of Scottish descent, because the Declaration of Arbroath, the Scottish Declaration of Independence, was signed on April 6, 1320 and the American Declaration of Independence was modeled on that inspirational document; Whereas this resolution honors the major role that Scottish Americans played in the founding of this Nation, such as the fact that almost half of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were of Scottish descent, the Governors in 9 of the original 13 States were of Scottish ancestry, Scottish Americans successfully helped shape this country in its formative years and guide this Nation through its most troubled times." www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/senate-resolution/155/all-info
Declaration of Arbroath (Popular sovereignty) - That the independence of Scotland was the prerogative of the Scottish people, rather than the King of Scots. That government is contractual and that kings can be chosen by the community rather than by God alone. Popular sovereignty or the sovereignty of the people's rule; is the principle that the authority of a state and its government is created and sustained by the consent of its people.
Sir John Alexander Macdonald (11 January 1815 - 6 June 1891) was the first Prime Minister of Canada (1867-1873, 1878-1891). The dominant figure of Canadian Confederation, he had a political career which spanned almost half a century. Macdonald was born in Scotland; when he was a boy his family immigrated to Kingston in the Province of Upper Canada (today in eastern Ontario). As a lawyer he was involved in several high-profile cases and quickly became prominent in Kingston, which elected him in 1844 to the legislature of the Province of Canada. By 1857, he had become premier under the colony's unstable political system. In 1864, when no party proved capable of governing for long, Macdonald agreed to a proposal from his political rival, George Brown, that the parties unite in a Great Coalition to seek federation and political reform. Macdonald was the leading figure in the subsequent discussions and conferences, which resulted in the British North America Act and the birth of Canada as a nation on 1 July 1867. Macdonald was the first Prime Minister of the new nation, and served 19 years; only William Lyon Mackenzie King served longer.
@@barbarossa5700 The acts of Union took place a century after the first ENGLISH colony was established and part of the whole thing was that Scotland wanted to get into the colonial game. The two nations shared a monarch in between this time but that doesn't make them a united kingdom and until then the colonies would be English ventures.
@@user-pv8lp6ht3z That's true but the SNP are trying to distance itself from the not small part played by Scotland in not only creating the Empire but running it.
@@johnyare8576 where have you seen this? I believe the SNP are the only ones who are trying to show that side of history in schools?
Nicely explained.
The Kingdom is the United Kingdom of Great Britain (the island where England, Scotland and Wales is located) and Northern Ireland. UK= 4 countries, GB= 3 countries.
Northern Ireland is not a country though.... it's a manufactured failed statelet.
not at that time...the UK came in the second acts of union, a century later. Wales and Ireland (and let's not forget Cornwall) were still under the limbo of being considered a wider part of the Kingdm of England--albeit being even more nuanced, that is just a quick and dirty summarized explanation.
@msmissy6888 Um, yeah, that is pretty common knowledge. I know the Anglo-Saxon history, and before, pretty well; surely in equal manner to you. I am confused why you thought that was something someone doesn't know.
An Irish perspective: So the King of Scotland took over as King of England also in 1603. England then heroically resisted Scottish domination for over a century, but in 1707 England finally gave in due to Scottish persistence. Now, in the 21st Century there is a movement in Scotland to give the English back their independence, but most English people are no longer interested. Don't let's get started on Northern Ireland!
Haha
That's the most interesting and probably factual perspective I've heard. Well put andrew
You know how someone is Irish? They have to tell you about it.
😂And Scots have the Tridents so it´s up to them what happens next. :-)
Ahhhhhhh I'm conflicted about leaving the Union, I feel like Scotland and England would both just be diminished. There has been good parts and bad parts to the Union and many Pro's and many Cons to leaving.
I hate Westminster but I've not met many English who like it either. I’ve got so many English friends and I like the idea of unity and being something bigger. But I fucking hate Westminster and I hate the ridiculous tendencies of some who vote SNP.
Great video though guys.
Solidarity forever, the union between our nations must continue and we must fix the country together leaving will be a horrible play for you Scots many are leaving due to Brexit but does nobody see the Irony in leaving the Union beacuse of us leaving another one?, I see you Scots as fellow country men and brothers we have bled in the trenches together we should not break the Union at any cost!
Pretty much the rest of England doesn't like the Tories but we vote for them. Image if we had a Labour Government lol
@The Philosoraptor Unlikely, but we will see.
@@Bluesfan1780 both parties suck and don’t differ importantly in policy lmao
@@edelweiss7928 Believe me I hate them both.
The way to host pronounced "Acts of Union" sounded a lot like "Axe of Union." How funny. Nice video.
And "high.....land". Cringe.
Seen this comment just as he said that lol lol lol lol
@@drewbewho cringe at that
Great video! 👍
When you showed the clans of Scotland I spent a few seconds looking for my ancestors clan The Ogilvy Clan
Your channel has truly changed my life. i've been
studying and researching about crypto for a
while now, do to the economy crisis and i got stuck at some point on the
learning curve. now i can say I'm truly improving
my understanding of this whole new world and
making great profit weekly, all thanks to you
Yes that's true
But i recommended Mrs Sophia she's really my bitcion trading manager
@@Michael-xe7xoMy first investment with her gave me profit of over $24,000 Us dollars and ever since then she has never failed to deliver and I can even say she's the most sincere broker I have known
@@--_juggleku I invested £5000 pounds I I received £54,000 thousand pounds within 7 days working
My first experience with her gave me the assurance that has made me to invest without fear of loosing
I remember being in Texas and having to explain that we're not arrogant by calling ourselves 'Great' when it was put to me, it's that 'Great' refers to the largest major land mass of the islands (Comprising Wales, England, Scotland) it's not 'Great' in the sense of 'were amazing' lol
Its is called Great Britain to distinguish it from Little Britain, AKA Brittany, in France.
You had to explain what "great" means in Texas. Why am I not surprised?🤦
@@spencerferrier3857 yes it's as if there would be no practical reason for a Texan to know such a fact to get along in every day life. What brutes these Texans are.
Great! Pls also keep in mind the fact that 'Slavery, Colonialism & Colonization' are all evil things done by evildoers.
Around fifty 50 nations fell under British Colonialism; while around twenty five 25 nations under French Colonialism.
- In the Colonial era all Anglo Western Colonizers did in their Colonies worldwide was build infrastructure, such as roads and ports so that they could ship abundant natural mineral resources, raw materials back to Europe to make fine goods, since there hardly has any mineral resources in Europe. That is what Colonialism is all about; "Pillage and Plunder" at will.
For instance, it is agreed upon the fact that Africa in general has progressed a lot more in the past 20-30 years than 200 years of Western Colonialism there.
Besides, World organization such as United Nations, UN was helped founded, with cleverly drawn charters, by the West; only after they have had enough of practicing centuries-long global Slavery, Colonization and Colonialism; in such a way so as to;
- keep their accumulated wealth to themselves,
- their accumulated crimes not to get prosecuted by their former victims. 😔
"Anglo caused most of the world's problems." - David Cameron, former British Prime Minister
“British society has never been cleansed of the filth of imperialism.” - Salman Rushdie
The fact that they need to repent & repay their sins & crimes. After all, it's "a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do" thing.
Like I said, repay and repent your long overdue crimes and sins... Remember the saying, "a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do".
"History is written by the victors and liars." ~ Napoleon Bonaparte
Speaking of 'the rule of Law', may I ask where is the rule of law when the Anglo West is practicing centuries-long global Slavery, Colonialism & Colonization?
May I ask when will the West face justice for their notorious centuries-long global crimes of Slavery, Colonialism and Colonization from North/South America to Australia/New Zealand?
Speaking of 'crime'.., remember, it’s only a crime if you lose.
The Anglo Western bloc had been on the winning side for about three centuries.
Obviously, they couldn't care less about the "crimes" any more. 😔
@@AGrace-tw6ku you mean colonization is basicaly getting rewards after your strong military defeated weaker nation? wont feel bad for defeated nation
0:34, it's the 17th century, not the 16th
The centuries are one ahead of the years
I think not a lot of people realize it but technically Scotland made the U.K.
@MsMissy good job!
And the French and German rule it. :-)
@@blackcat2628zd Well at certain points in history France had the region but not today and unless you mean Germanic tribes, what are you talking about?
@@scottayers8143 Plantagenets and Hanoverians for starters
@@blackcat2628zd that's only light influence
Great Britain is the name of the island that England, Scotland and Wales are on. The name of the State is “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.
Because Scotland's King had the best claim to the English throne.
Scot here and proud of my British Identity. Stronger together 🏴♥️🇬🇧
As per the SNP, England kidnapped the entire land of Scotland, and is to be blamed for every single problem Scotland faces, especially the problems that seem to stem from Nicola Sturgeon England is especially to blame for those problems.
Burn Holyrood
Not our fault that you got into debt from trying to colonise.
@@Bluesfan1780 I think he’s being sarcastic. He’s basically saying the SNP believe that everything is the fault of England. He’s not wrong if that is what he’s saying. A meteor could hit Scotland and the SNP would still blame it on England.
@@Bluesfan1780 Hello, pirate. How's it like having had the second biggest empire ever, since your people never monopolized a single ocean whereas my people, by the grace of God, monopolized most? Felipe II: owner of countless lands PLUS MOST OCEANS INT HE COSMOS!
Victoria: owner of more lands 'cause of more wastelands, PLUS... never mind. Not one ocean dominated. See all the French islands in every ocean. See the Spanish wiping us out in Cartagena de Indias even when they were weaker at sea.
@@Valencetheshireman927 Ah I see
Please can you be write the exact names of the epidemic soundtracks you used?
Please do one about Wales and England
POV, despite the myth Scotland was not “broke” although some rich aristocrats lost a lot of their capital. England was however very broke with a huge national debt. Which Scotland had to shoulder as part of the Union. England paid a sum “the equivalent” to many of those who had lost in the Darien venture (presumably financed with more borrowing). This was essentially compensation - a bribe - to get these same nobles and aristocrats to vote for Union.
I read about this like a few years before but what I remembered is simply that the House of Hanover does not wanted Scotland to secede from the union. I'm glad to hear more about this. But still, the fact that they do not wanted Scotland to secede should be mention as well.
Um bollocks, nothing to do with that, the Scots went broke over the failed colonisation of Darien and begged the English to bail them out.
@@QuietManUK agreed they went broke in 1500s I think due to failed attempt off moving to a other country
@@QuietManUK more to do with the alien act and the act of perdition
@@QuietManUK
Not only was Scotland not broke it had zero debt. The treaty of union actually states that Scotland had zero debt but will take on a share of Englands massive debt, but would receive sixty thousand pounds further down the line to offset any losses incurred. Scotland received sixty percent of this.
@@NuclearHaggis They had no debt because the English paid it off, study some history.
Good video
I love how you put Glasgow as the capital 😁😁🏴
capital is edinburgh
If Scottish English and Scottish Gaelic were different areas, then Scottish English would be Edinburgh while Scottish Gaelic would be Glasgow.
@@azhang5438 Yeah, no. That's wrong
Sorry.
@@SpaceHCowboy that's what I observe. Mostly Glaswegians speak Scottish Gaelic while Edinburghers speak Scots. But this is just my prediction if the two languages are equivalent to separate regions.
@@azhang5438 are you scottish? cause most scots speak english now
Please what's the song playing? 3:35
Scottish nationalists will obviously disagree but how successful the union is isn't debatable even 300 years later.Scotland was largely transformed into a modern state after the union,Britain built an empire and started the industrial revolution from which Scotland helped build and take part in.
Yes Scotland helped but we have never been an equal partner per capita at the outset we never got a fair amount of mps when both populations were similar sized.
@@Challis1989 the union was never to be an equal partner but of merger. Every country always has a region treated not very fairly, that is the cost of unity.
@gazibizi9504 and a cost that can be rectified. This is the 2000s not 1700s we should be striving for better not keeping others down. The union destroyed much of Scottish culture and while the empire made it wealthy was the cost worth it?
@@Challis1989 the union was the creation of a unified nation state the United Kingdom of Great Britain it was never a "partnership" within every nation state there are more dominant areas even within Scotland itself many people in Shetland and Orkney think Edinburgh and the central lowlands are too dominant in Scotland as well and let's not mention the EU that scottish nationalists are so keen to join Germany and France have way say than Portugal or Denmark....the scots that emigrated and colonised what became Scotland wiped out the original pictish culture how far do you want to go back with this?
@waynegoodman3345 I know you're talking nonsense and can't be taken seriously when you say that only the nationalists want in the eu. They make up only half the population spread across multiple parties yet Scotland voted over 60% to stay in Europe meaning unionists are also in favour of the eu.
The original Scots wiped out some of the picts and Caledonians and merged with others. In the south the brthyonic Scottish natives survived for hundreds of years after that.
As to the eu each country gets a fair vote we don't in the uk. I don't dispute France and Germany have the influence as a major powerful nation but it is easier for Norway and a collection of nations to vote and block bills that they want than should Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland want to stop English legislation
I do believe eventually Scotland will get it's independence from England, Wales and Norther Ireland to become the Scottish republic.
This is what happens when you get an American to research Scottish history - you get a cleansed, anglified version which cites the Darian scheme as the primary reason for the union of nations, yet completely ignores the Alien Act of 1705.
Tbf that would probably call for going into detail about the political blackmailing between the two parliaments, and they wanted to keep this a ten minute video so I can't say I blame them. They didn't go into much detail about other aspects of the story either. Also, I can't really see how this is anglified; they mentioned that the crown pushed to collapse the clan system and may have sabotaged the Darian scheme to favour England as well. It presents the Darian scheme as a sort of killing blow but by no means the primary reason. Could you explain a bit further, please?
@@joshygoldiem_j2799 I agree there was a lot of tit for tat Parliamentary acts passed, so why concentrate on one to the exclusion of the others? The 1704 Act of Security, the resulting Alien Act 1705, followed by the Act of Union 1707 were all as a result of the 1701 Act of Settlement, which said the English heir would continue to rule Scotland in the event of the monarch’s death, and was passed without Scotland’s permission. Scotland was never a voluntary partner, and it’s time we stopped perpetuating that lie.
@@stuart8343 Scotland's permission? Scotland including England ceased to exist with the union. Westminster was the sole authority until devolution. Scots, English were all British citizens and enjoyed privileges that came with it.
@@gazibizi9504 - precisely. Scotland lost her national identity because the English King threatened to seize Scottish noble lands if they didn’t capitulate. Scottish commoners were overwhelmingly against the formation of the union, but the nobles didn’t want to risk forfeiture of their land, and so pledged their allegiance to a foreign king. England has been an imperialist bully for its entire existence.
“As long as a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be subjected to the lordship of the English. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.” - Declaration of Arbroath, 1320.
I am one of those hundred, and I *will* see an independent Scotland in my lifetime ✊🏽🏴
@@stuart8343 Inntineach, ach carson an làmh donn?
OMG I LOVE THIS!!!
Fun fact the ku Klux Klan was founded by Scottish folks, also the McDonald's live on as the most famous Klan
Folks...lol ..too many muts..is the true problem of the world 🌎🌍.. poor breeding
Ah this takes me back to Scottish history class at uni lol
Sooner the Union dies the better
get mad
60% of Scottish people voted to reject indepndence from Britain in 2014
@@ahsanurr4219 54%. Many of the arguments from the pro-remaining side no longer apply; e.g. access to the EU. The youth yearn for aesthetic and tribal identity as a counterbalance to the encroachment and excesses of modernity, and independence finds its greatest support among the 18-24 year age bracket. England proper has increasingly huge cultural and other problems that the elite of that country--among corrupt institutions like Westminster firmly in the pocket of international high finance--adamantly refuses to deal with; the English do not need our presence, our needs, and our local issues further complicating matters; 5million Scots cannot save 50million Englishmen.
Something tells me that Knowledgia forgot they have a series on Skanderbeg lol
Maybe they are working hard for it, I hope it will be an amazing episode
As someone who is 50% Scottish and 50% English, it makes me sad to even think about Scotland leaving. But I felt sad about Brexit too. Hopefully a reformation of the House of Lords, being parallel to something like a Senate of more equiable representation of the unique identities (maybe England's own devolution even too) can remedy this from happening.
Hell NO! The people of Scotland shall be free once again! You are not truly Scottish even if your DNA says otherwise if you support Westminster controlling over the Scottish. Scotland shall be free once again.
@@ebanydwayne1357 I don't support the current system, I think is should be revised to be more equal and fair.
@@MichaelSidneyTimpson agreed Michael.
In my mind the only question I have is what would Scotland offer the world to be worth supporting? I genuinely don't know what Scotland could offer the EU or NATO to keep itself safe. I could see NI joining Ireland but even that's not completely set in stone.
So your a celtic anglo Saxon ?
As a resident of England and growing up 1 hour from the Scottish border in the Lake Distract my school taught me nothing of this. Quite shameful really.
I’ve never heard the English civil war be called the war of the three kingdoms before, ngl.
The English civil war was only one of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms obviously.
Yeah they changed the name a while back to more accurately reflect the state of affairs at the time
Scotland was a failed colonial power they realised they could only become a successful power by joining England...the union transformed a largely rural backwater on the edge of europe into a modern industrial world power. Anyone who says otherwise is just trying to re write history.
Could you do a video of the act of union of 1801.
I believe that Great Britain does not include Northern Ireland.
And you are correct.
Great Britain because it’s the largest island in the British isles. That includes England Scotland wales.
Thanks for all ur efforts. how to watch ur hidden videos tho
Ultimately, the British state was put together for empire, not altruism, the key investors who lost in the failed Darien scheme were the people who received payment, not Scotland, whatever way you look at it, it was a bribe for those with a vote were lured into taking. The people of Scotland were not bailed out as is often claimed, they had no vote & would not have voted for union. Scots would have got through that difficult period as we always did, we would have ended up with a more diverse economy not relying on coal, steel & iron as the main stay of the economy though, that may have been part of it?. Having a common bond with English people is not the same as having a common bond with the British state.
The overarching reason for union from an English perspective was Scotland's strategic value, to this day that is the main stay of union, we certainly didn't benefit much from oil & gas in the north sea off Scotland, it paid off UK debt & built the M25 whilst tradesmen like myself were leaving in our tens of thousands to work in London. That certainly didn't happen in Norway, their people weren't leaving in the tens of thousands & they have an oil fund, the UK people don't & the chancellor Nigel Lawson's justification for there being no oil fund absolutely summed up the Thatcher era, they turned Britain into a low wage low skill economy relying on access to debt & the dumbing down of engineering excellence, we'll just import all our skills? A piggin disgrace that has left the UK short of the very skills every competent nation requires. The Barnett formula was introduced just as oil & gas was starting to flow, people forget, or don't even understand, that was a buy off for using oil & gas to benefit the City of London usurpers. Further, Scotland has about 9% of the island of Britain's population but 30% of the land mass & 60% of the seas. It is clearly bound to take more public funds to manage these outlying communities & since close to 10% of the population are English, especially in dispersed in the outlying communities, it obviously isn't all beneficial for only Scots.
Could you please preview the english subtitles down Screen?.. Thanks for your response
The Kingdom of Ireland remained a separate client state of England until 1801
Yes although increasingly throughout the 1700s as the century progressed it can no longer be described as a client state
Just to clarify the country of Scotland did not go bankrupt it was the investors that went bankrupt
Literally found an error in the first 20 seconds
Northern Ireland is not, never has been, and never will be part of Great Britain. Great Britain is the island. Northern Ireland is part of the *United Kingdom* but not Great Britain. Hence "The United Kingdom Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland"
Saying that Northern Ireland is part of Great Britain is like saying Greece is part of Asia.
Im just trying to figure out why Scotland decided to give up on everything and form a colonial empire despite not being able to pay for one.
Yeah, I think the labelling on the map regarding the island of Ireland is confusing.
The colouring makes sense since it gives clear indication that Ireland was subject to the English/British monarchy.
However, the placement of the text 'England' is confusing considering England has never claimed that Ireland was England.
That is the same when it comes to the text 'Great Britain'. Even the current Union is called 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland'.
I understand simplification but it's not that difficult a concept to grasp & mislabelling can cause confusion.
Also, someday, people will just be considerate & not use the term 'British Isles'. It's unnecessary.
The term British Isles is part and parcel of antiquated notions of the British empire which are long gone.
The Brits use this term for Ireland to cause conflict as it's a political term.
Even UK law uses the term British Islands to refer to the UK, Channel Islands, and Isle of Man as a single collective entity, but does not include Ireland.
The manufactured term was introduced as the British Isles in the 16th/17th centuries by English and Welsh writers for both propaganda and political reasons.
The term itself was always controversial to the Irish, but became more so after the breakup of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1922.
The term is rejected by the Irish government, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Irish people.
The term was formally disavowed in September 2005 by the Irish Government when Foreign Minister Dermot Ahern famously stated:
"The British Isles is not an officially recognised term in any legal or inter-governmental sense. It is without any official status. The Government, including the Department of Foreign Affairs, does not use this term."
We reject it. It's just another manufactured British term to establish some sort of false dominance over another nation of people on a different island…
@@IrishLadASMRThe commenter is referring to the fact that constitutionally at the time the Kingdom of Ireland existed. It was a separate country from England and the two were simply in personal Union. Although the English, and later, the British Government had powers over the Irish Parliament up to the latter 1700s, Ireland was constitutionally a separate state. It therefore is misleading to show Scotland as separate from England pre-1707 and yet show Ireland the same as England
James I had one of the best claims to the English Throne once Lizzie I died. Saved you same time.
a great nation indeed that has given so much to the world. God bless Great Britain
Like slavery, genocide, colonialism?
@@deshaun9473 nope, nope and nope, please pick up a history book and study.
@@zacha4812 a history based on Patriachy, genocide, slavery, colonialism. You need to research more.
@@deshaun9473 the way you said in it your original comment seemed like you think the Britain invented all those things, well it did not, all those things existed since the Roman era.
Britain is constitutional monarchy, the monarch did not have that much power, parliament did, females were allowed to become monarch though.
Every European country committed g*nocide, but English people were also g*nocided against during the Viking era.
Britain literally abolished the sl@ve trade, oh and sl@very was never legal in Britain because parliament never bothered to make it legal.
So? Every major European country in the 1700s colonised, Britain wasn’t even the first country to begin colonisation Portugal was.
By your same logic every European country’s history sucks right?
No you need too.
@@zacha4812 He’s probably one of those Indians who are brainwashed by the education system but yet has no problem with other colonial empires especially France who owned a city there.
Great Britain has been the bane of all life for centuries.
Let's be honest, support for the union now boils down to what football team you support.
Can you do a video about formativnim of the personal union of Croatia and Hungary
NEUW!
Scotland has experienced incredible economic growth under the union, it's crazy that in modern days there are so many separatist nationalists that want to divide the UK
It's call a democracy, in an equal partnership if 1 wants to go it's own way then why shouldn't it?
@@sandman31d68 except there was a vote and people voted against. Even polls still favor the UK. That is actual democracy, not repeating a vote until the cringe minority wins
@@sandman31d68 That isn't democracy. Scotland joined the union in 1707 and why should it now be allowed to leave? Scotland refusing to acknowledge the brexit vote is not democracy. They got a vote on independence in 2014 and they chose to stay that's democracy.
That happed when there was still a British Empire !
@@JJaqn05 Scotland voted in majority to stay in the EU: that's also democracy.
European history is amazingly complex.
I think American history is way less complex. The US has never been a monarchy, never had a revolution or coup d'etat and it has never been a dictatorship, neither a fascist nor a communist.
American history starts with the first English colonies on the East coast, because we know so little about what the Indians did before the Europeans arrived
@@Ch-xk5tv Even then, I'd declare 'American' history an extension of British history. Even the American War of Independence was one group of Brits, fighting another group of Brits to create their own system of governance in a far away land. Only the British knew how to beat the British.
It's bound to be it's thousands of years old. One major event, can have an affect many years later.
@@Ch-xk5tv cause its 300 years, english history is over 1000 years
this is very interesting even the great britian's history like scotland use to be the great rival of the english and then they just became part of the same country like that is very much pakistan becomming part of india we will not like it but then england’s need for political safeguards against French attacks and a possible Jacobite restoration, for which Scotland might serve as a conveniently open back door.
💯✔️ END OF UNITED KINGDOM🎉🎊🎉 INNEVITABLE
SCOTLAND INDEPENDENCE🏴🏴🏴
UNITED IRELAND🇮🇪🇮🇪🇮🇪🇮🇪
That would lead to an independent England and the sooner the better.
The people of 1707 never had a referendum to join to a union with England. Scotland should be Independent defacto. Also Ireland should be one Reunited nation. Northern Ireland is a part of Ireland.
Oh Jesus Christ. Did the English people have a vote on it though? This wasn’t a time where there was political representation like there is today. Arguments for independence are fine especially in regards to the last 100 years but please remain historically accurate. Whether Northern Ireland wants a United Ireland is a decision that’s up to them.
@@jasonameh8985 Historically Scotland was a sovereign nation with a king and parliament, Ireland everyone can see that it is ONE land piece one language one religion Christian, Only the dominant England transplanted their people & made up a Northern Ireland, like the English created chaos in Kashmir & Palestine.
@@benharis1956 Love how you just ignored what I said and switched topics lol. Oh the dominant England transplanted people? What about the Ulster Scots who were Scottish low landers who were sent to Ireland. Do you know about Edward Carson, the Irish Unionist who’s family came from Dumfries, Scotland? You know who was the King at the time of the plantations? James VI and I, oh he was born in Scotland, I thought he was ENGLISH smh.
Oh yeah Arthur Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary who made the Balfour declaration that urged the need for a Jewish state in Palestine was also Scottish if you didn’t know. The division of India was negotiated not forced, either heard of the Muslim League? Their aim was to establish a Pakistan separate from the Hindu majority. The division wasn’t a smooth affair unfortunately it lead to the deaths of 100,000s but that was negotiated by the British State and Empire, not English. Research this and come back with history that isn’t political agenda, it makes your argument weak :).
This was interesting.
Scotland: Try's to establish a colony
Also Scotland: Goes bankrupt
Due to many unforseen circumstances such as exotic diseases and of course the disgusting betrayal of greed by King William... Among other things.
@@MrLYPH Is there a video? I knew there was a dispute with Spain and England refusing to trade with the Scottish settlers but that's it.
Actually Scotland nearly went bankrupt when we had to buy back an island from the Vikings also didn't say we went bankrupt fool say we nearly went bankrupt
@@MrLYPH betrayal 🤣
Unfamiliar with independence are you?
@@MrLYPH And the Spanish.
Can someone tell me, Dublin was previously known as The English Pale, directly ruled by England. So the Irish Unionist and Loyalist for the UK was there. Why it wasn’t incorporated in Northern Ireland when they opted to stay within the union during Irish Republic establishment?
my understanding was the 1922 vote was up or down, county by county. only the 6 counties surrounding belfast voted to stay with england
The English Pale existed during the middle ages by 1920 Dublin was mostly Catholic and believed in Irish independence. In the early 17th century many people were moved to Ulster from the English/Scottish borderlands that is why that area ended up with a protestant majority and decided to remain in the UK
@@tsmith415 UK not England
Ireland = Irish people = Irish culture = Irish language (now that is enough clues for you!)
Now having read the above... that is why we have always fought, resisted and never bent knee to British rule.
Do you think we fought British rule for centuries for the laugh of it or something? When people fight, they fight for a good reason and when a nation fights it's because something was taken away from them!
After the Norman/English Invasion of Ireland in the 1100s, we then had Planters arrive as per The Plantations in 16th- and 17th-century which involved the confiscation of Irish-owned land by the English Crown and the colonisation of land with settlers from Britain.
We fought back:
The two Desmond Rebellions took place in 1569-1573 and 1579-1583 to *fight against the threat of the extension of the English government* over the province.
The successful Battle of Clontibret was *fought against the British* in County Monaghan in 1595.
The successful Battle of the Yellow Ford was *fought against the British* in County Armagh in 1598.
The Nine Years' War, sometimes called Tyrone's Rebellion took place in Ireland from 1593 to 1603. It was fought between an Irish alliance to *fight against English rule in Ireland.*
The Rebellion of 1641 took place when Irish Catholics were being threatened by expansion of the anti-Catholic English Parliament and Scottish Planters and they *rebelled against English and Protestant domination.*
The Irish Rebellion of 1798 was a major uprising *against British rule in Ireland.* (The Society of United Irishmen was led primarily by liberal Protestants).
The Irish wanted an end to anti-Catholic discrimination, greater Irish self-governance, and to roll back the Plantations of Ireland.
The Irish rebellion of 1803 was launched by Irish republicans *against British rule in Ireland*
The Easter Rising of 1916 was piloted by Irish republicans *against British rule in Ireland* with the aim of establishing an independent Irish Republic.
The civil rights movement in the early 1960s challenged the inequality and discrimination against ethnic Irish Catholics that was perpetrated by the Ulster Protestant community.
Derry activists' marched on the 5 October 1968 in Derry, but were attacked by the RUC and loyalists.
THAT IS A SNAPSHOT OF HOW WE HAVE FOUGHT AND RESISTED BOTH BRITISH RULE AND DISCRIMINATION BY THE UNIONIST COMMUNITY!
Read up on the British invasion in the 1100s and the Plantations of Ireland in the 1600s.
Rule Britannia from Glasgow 😎 🇬🇧😊
Question - How does the annexation of Wales in 1536 mean Wales magically doesn’t exist? When Germany took over France it didn’t all of a sudden become Germany. Wales is tied to England via the Tudor annexation, and not English Conquest! Owain Glyndwr Installed autonomy to Wales from 1400 to 1536.
Germany didn’t annex France. England annex wales and incorporated it into the english legal system. Before it was the Principality of wales was an english client kingdom/junior partner
It came about through Henry Tudor. He was a Welshman. He became king of England with the support of the Welsh. Wales was united with England and it was called the Kingdom of England.
Long live the Union 🇬🇧🏴
May it break. Scotland FREE! You're second-class citizens in your own country? You don't speak a Scottish language! You speak the language of your masters! Your capital is not in Scotland! It's in the land of your masters! Why play second-fiddle when you can be DA BOSS?
@The Philosoraptor What lmao
@The Philosoraptor Do you have any idea how little that narrows it down?
@The Philosoraptor Ah yeah, right before I debunked what you said, sad that you specifically remember that tho
@The Philosoraptor Yeah no, classic no arguments from you, it doesn’t matter if they’re legal, they’re not genetically similar
0:34 17th century, not 16th
*It's **_James the Sixth_** of Scotland, NOT **_James the Sickth._*
There was a Pope Sixtus the Fifth, but strangely enough never a Pope Fifthus the Sixth.
Can i ask why you ignore Wales? you got videos of every other nation, is it the languige?
Would love to know why wales is showing just as England in this. I know the reason but would be informative to point out for people who don’t
The person making these videos has form on this. Any Welsh history is omitted from the narrative. Look at their video titled ‘How England was Formed’. The animation shades the map of the British Isles different with colours and labels to show the development of England and its relations with Scotland, Ireland etc. But Wales is not even mentioned. It remains as if nothing at all was happening there while England was developing. Astonishing considering the biggest earthwork border in Europe was erected by Offa to delineate England’s western border with Wales, not to mention the constant conflict, warfare, alliances etc over the centuries.
At best they are a lazy and negligent historian, at worst they are a bigoted revisionist.
@@Knappa22 Wales was part of the Kingdom of England that's why
Still see remains of that today with Wales n England having the same legal/court system while both scotlands and northern Ireland is slightly different
@@Knappa22 So true, very well said 👍🏴
It’s time for Welsh independence. The Union is dead and needs to die
@@MonTheWell1886 Scotland's legal system is very different to that of England and Wales, Northern Ireland's is basically the same though
Way to completely brush over the Cromwell era
Scotland 🏴 Northern Ireland Wales 🏴 and England 🏴 Isle of Wight, Isle of man, Guernsey and Jersey united Forever ❤️✊❤️
United in gayness.
Don’t forget Wales! 🏴🇬🇧
@The Philosoraptor Science says guilty unless proven innocent. You put the cart before the horse. The onus is on you to prove raptors existed. Your sources argument is just AD VERECVNDIAM (a fallacy 'cause you're illogical) with an argument from incredulity fallacy (another fallacy 'cause your'e extra illogical).
You also distort my argument because you're very very illogical.
Ireland was never United with England or Scotland, just taken over & treated us like slaves similar to its former African colonies. Not anymore, never again & soon the North will be annexed into the Republic, Scotland at some point will cut away from the union & Wales will follow leaving England on its own.
@@Valencetheshireman927 Apology, Sorted.
South East USA (Virginia/Carolina etc) is the bit of Scotland that moved over to USA in the Ice age! They are both identical!
Can’t wait for independence
What independence?
so we can conquer you for real this time
💯✔️AGREED👍️
@I you forget the british empire existed?
Do they teach this in the uk?
Having the word "England" sprawled over part of Ireland is 1. Highly Annnoying for an Irish person. 2. Historically totally incorrect. The Kingdom of England never included Ireland. Ireland was a various times the Lordship of Ireland and then the Kingdom of Ireland. After 1801 Ireland became part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. This ceased to exist with Irish independence and the formation of the Irish Free State and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Just thought I'd clarify.
_Having the word "England" sprawled over part of Ireland is 1. Highly Annnoying for an Irish person._
I mean, that's good enough reason for me.
@@dannyarcher6370 If you're Irish
@@JJaqn05 Listen ya prick as a Scotsman we hate it as well and I already tore you a new hole on the other comments wanna go again?
@@JJaqn05 I love the Irish. Especially when they're angry.
So English of you to clarify this 😌
what an amazing history England has.
The dream of Scottish independence will never die.
Technically, it won't actually even be independence as we understand it. Scotland won't be independent from The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as Great Britain will cease to exist once Scotland dissolves that particular union.
Keep on dreaming, the majority of us Scots want to remain in the Union.
hell yeah, 19th october 2023
England was ruled by the Scottish Stuart’s from 1603-1707 so can England be free from Scotland?
@@nathan-iz2bq Illegal referendum.
I'm an African and have an explanation.
James 5th of Scoth wanted to keep the old link between Great Britain isle (Scotland+Wales) and Brittany in actual France.
are you telling me that the union of England and Scotland started because Henry the VIII couldn't get a healthy male heir and their daughters refused to get laid ?
No, it's because the loser Scots went broke over the failed colonisation of Darien.
Mary was desperate to have an heir and suffered from a false pregnancy. Over a year after her pregnancy was announced but no baby appeared, she was mocked by rumours she'd given birth to a lap dog.
Elizabeth I didn't marry cos marrying would've meant losing the throne in favour of her husband. The same thing happened to her sister Mary. Upon her marriage to Phillip II, he became King of England, outranked his wife, signed Bills into law and sat on the throne in Parliament. Had Mary given birth to a child, the marriage agreement required England to become part of Spain so Philip could rule Spain and England as one country.
It wasn't until Queen Anne, over 100 years later, that a woman could become Queen without her husband taking the throne from her.
3:18 - Thank god sanity prevailed.
FREE SCOTLAND 🏴 ✊️
As someone living in Scotland, no thanks. We certainly wouldn't be free under an SNP lead independent Scotland.
@@STEINLAR "As someone living in Scotland" you don't have a choice in the matter so stfu................... This is for the will of the Scottish people you have no right to even have a though on the subject at hand!
@Techstorm 123 This is very wrong. We Scots actually don't want to become independent. The majority of us that aren't braindead small minded nationalists understand the Union is extremely beneficial to us. We will never embrace terrorists like the IRA, we don't forget the children they blew up in our country and we never will.
Scotland is free. But England was ruled by the Scottish Stuart’s from 1603-1707 so can England be free from Scotland?
@@STEINLAR Whos says the SNP would lead an independent Scotland?
Scotland and England are still two countries and are in a Treaty of Union similar to the treaty that Britain joined with the European Union but Scotland is being treated as a colony which needs to be addressed as soon possible
Ireland is it's own country it isn't apart of the United kingdom's your map is very wrong and as a native from Dublin I find this highly offensive...
It's in a historical context though. At that time Ireland was under English/British rule. At the end the video shows the map of the modern day UK correctly, without Ireland.
I could find it highly offensive that you think Dublin is a part of Gaelige Eire, it's really the Viking lands of Olaf Guthfrithson who was beaten when he invaded England with Constantine II and Owain of Strathclyde...
Isadore- we have some water obstacles.. I wont leave Sully- so if its not water access- then I complete 3 hour point checks.. I could, but I dont want too- Sully is my prioty- If you commit to an exclsuive commitment- then thats the commintment that you make.
Great Britain is not a kingdom, the UK is a kingdom.
Great Britain is the name of the largest island within the British Isles.
The British Isles consists of around 100 or so islands off the Northwest coast of Europe, most of them small.
Bud see having to explain this to people it's brutal
Great Britain was the kingdom. It was only called the United Kingdom after 1801
@@JJaqn05 You totally dense.... There has never been one country called Great Britain p.s this absolute sausage jockey actually said "Scotland isn't a country" kid.... Why you replying to people when clearly you are brain dead give up!
King James styled himself as the King of Great Britain.
But we can't call you United Kingdomese, United Kingdomers or UKers. It would also sound ridiculous to call you United Kingdomians. You're British, no matter if your Island is British or Irish. It is not very common to say "Britons and Northern Irish" either.
Additionally: Why are people from the Falkland Islands or Gibraltar called "British", even though they don't live on the British Isles.
“Bought and sold for English gold” as Rabbie Burns poetically wrote.