Um...did I completely miss the part where Scotland and England formed a dynastic union in 1603 after the Scottish king, James VI, succeeded to the English throne as well upon Elizabeth I's death? Officially they remained two separate countries, but this was still a crucial step toward their eventual unification, since their thrones remained united from that point on.
I had the mughal empire and the iroquis trade regions once, it lead to an indian province the middle of America and a native american province in the middle of india
Brady Ward Correction 10% Strong. 55.3% No, 44.7%. 2 million wanted to stay in the UK and 1.6 million wanted to leave the UK. 400K is a big difference when the country is so small.
Athiestforlife777 I think it's the other way round: Scrooge is like that because of the cliché of the Scotsmen. The stereotype is way older than Carl Barks invention of Scrooge McDuck.
I love how at 0:13, he has placed flags exactly where they are meant to be. In India, for example, the Portuguese had set up bases in Surat in Western India, the French had set up their base in Pondicherry in South India and the British had set it up in Bengal in East India.
Only 250 people were allowed to vote on whether to unify with England, of which 180 of them voted. Unsurprisingly most of them were given promises of money, land and titles in exchange for their votes. This caused uproar among the general population, as the vast majority were against it at the time.
Mitjitsu That's right, not such a democratic procedure.... It also went against English Law, and the Scottish Constitution, which is why attempts to unify the two kingdoms were denied previously, (there was previous attempts to unite the two countries into one). The Act of Union of 1707 is an illegal creation that which was created by Elites for their own purpse. How this occured was the corruption of the English Parliament to ratify the Act.
+Rex .Utimatum But if it hadn't have happened Scotland would have been invaded by England without choice. And for 1707 I think it was a democratic procedure when the normal thing to do would have been to annex Scottish territory.
+Robloxian BBC News Not many countries actually opt to be invaded by choice! There was no certainty it would have gone that way. Nor any certainty if force was used it would have worked.England had tried on and off for 600 years to subsume Scotland.Who know what would have happened if force was actually deployed Truth was neither side wanted war particularly from an economic standpoint.
+Saifthebest01 Eddie Izzard - an English Comic from the 90's - has a big sketch about how England took over the world through the use of Flag and being awfully polite.
Decent video, but would be worth mentioning that the "English" Royal Family at the time was in fact Scottish - The Stuarts.....should definitely have mentioned 1603 and the ascension of James VI of Scotland to the title of James I of England!
Sure, it’s a BIT of an oversimplification, but that doesn’t make a “The only time I’ve seen a country fail so badly at colonization that they got annexed” line any less funny
summer now. algarve is packed with lagostas (means lobsters) we called english tourists lobsters because they try to get a tan like the more darker skin colour and used to the climate Mediterranean people. obviously they are way too white for that and get easily sunburn and turn orange and look like lobsters.
Met a Portuguese girl recently and was excited to tell her all about my holidays in Portugal! She took one look at me and said "Algarve?" RIP my dreams of appearing cultured...
It happens a lot in Australia too. If people ask me what nationality I am, and I say I'm Australian (I was born here, but my parents weren't) they either laugh and say "You don't look Aussie" or ask "No, where are you from really?" but if I say I'm Italian that's perfectly acceptable.
The first ship shown while you discussed the journey around the Cape of Good Hope and Cape Horn was a tops'l schooner, a rig of ship that would be woefully unsuited for a long ocean journey like the one required to round either cape.
CGPGrey, I am hopelessly confused about the history and organization of the Holy Roman Empire. If anyone can clear things up, it's you. Please make a video about the HRE!!!
Well basically: We (germans) Had a king. That king was elected by lords (we had like 6-7 of them I think) who ruled over places roughly the size of saxony or bavaria. To get elected, he had to promise these lords or power or straight up bribe them which is why they got more and more power over time until we completely fell apart and were only one country by name. Oh and the king used to be crowned Kaiser by the pope, didn't change his direct power, but was huge for prestige. A few unification wars and a whole lot of bismarck later, we had the second Reich, the Kaiser-Reich up until Willhelm the Second and World War 1. BtW which is why the nazi germany was called the Third Reich. (Reich meaning kinda "Realm" and " Kingdom" at the same time) .
@MrMarmalad nothing of the sorts. Asia is made up of many different cultures whilst the area inhabited by the hre was all german besides the few italian states. Today its a bit different as Germany and Austria have lost lots of land since then but the core of the hre is still where germans live today.
So, this means that Scotland is not ruled by England, instead it is more like a "couple"? Thanks a lot, this cleared a lot of wrong points I had about this.
***** However the majority voted to stay and so our kingdoms stay as one. However, Scotland (along with Wales and Northern Ireland) were given more power to rule over their separate countries.
+cultureshock72 Actually, that is not completly true. The Union Jack is a combination between Scotland's flag, England's flag and the flag of the former Kingdom of Ireland.
At first, I thought I had left my Dwarf Fortress open, but then I realized that the music was just in the video. Nice video, and nice choice of song, CGP Grey!
Makes me proud to be British when I see all those flags that marked out our territory.Many Irish catholics in the 19th century joined the famous Irish regiments that fought as Britons but were lost after 1922 and partition does that not make your chest swell with pride Paul (lol mate)
LEGGIE 65 LEGGIE65 chest swell if your Scottish independence but not british, now your just grown adults who never left the british orphanage that you were left in 1707 by your Scottish ancestors.
As I said to you in earlier posts there's many Catholic No's and theres many Protestant yes's the country is divided you may end up with many James Connelly types or Wolfe tones as many Protestant yessers said after the vote they were going to Ireland to stay.
Oh the story is actually sillier than the video suggests. They actually started with 1200 Scots, who encountered the problems described above... ...then a month later Scotland sent two more ships with 300 more Scots to bolster things, except one of them burnt down accidentally, and the other Scots on the other ship saw how screwed everything was, tried to flee to Jamaica, and died of disease on the way. And because it was the 1690's and news travelled slow, 1000 more Scots landed on the gulf and did it all AGAIN.
The Pound was actually Scotland's currency before the union, Sterling was used by England, hence when the union was formed, the two currencies were joined and made synonymous, hence 'Pound-Sterling'. Also, William Patterson, the Scot who founded the Bank of England.
The Union transformed Scotland from a Feudal State to a State of Law. The following Enlightenment Period brought the Industrial Revolution. Scots thrived building the Empire. Had Scotland not united with England, it might have ended up being something like Albania or Moldavia.
Or more likely like Norway or Denmark, considering the population, geography and natural resources available.Certainly would have been very different but who knows
DMPepe Hi - I think if you look at the development of Law and Commerce in England, Scots made major contributions to modernize a legal system that had been adopted unchanged from essentially-Norman Law. Law in Scotland, on the other hand,, while it introduced elements of Feudalism,, was continuously developed to incorporate many European elements including some Roman Law
I love CGP Grey videos, but I have to point out that the prior video refers to Great Britain as more of a geographic term (the island itself) than a political one, while United Kingdom is the political term. In that sense, Scotland has always been a part of Great Britain at least in the historical sense. So the title really should be, "How Scotland joined the United Kingdom"
Or 'How Scotland united with England'. The UK didn't exist until 1801. The kingdom of Great Britain was actually a country rather than a union, that is until Ireland joined.
That moment I was five Also I'm swedish Also it's the kingdom of Ireland's flag too It makes the red cross that makes no sense except for matching with the scottish white cross
Sam Wolfenstein The blue around the flag is for continuity with thew colour of Scotland. Similar to the flag of Azad-Kashmir using the shade of Green present on the Pakistan Flag. Maybe it is not blue for Scotland, bu the colour which dominates the flag is what it is because of Scotland. :)
1. the isle of man is a seperate state that reconginses the queen as head of state but has its own parliment and laws e.g. no speed limits outside of towns. Cornwall is part of England and therefore not a colony. 2. the english empire was merged into the British Empire as the Kingdom of Scotland and England became one offical nation and therefore the English empire was 'renamed' the British empire.
Anglo-Saxons land in England. They conquer Cornwall. They try to conquer Scotland but fail. They try to conquer Wales but fail. They try again and win. Henry VIII unites England and Wales.
@BeastlyVoldemort - I’m not sure that’s needed given that the reason Wales joined the U.K. was because at the time it was considered a part of the Kingdom of England .
@@womanrespector7373 actually I was responding more to the comment from five months ago again I was trying to correct it for other people to see rather than the person who write who most likely won’t see this
Correct me if I'm wrong; But wasn't the Union formed through Elizabeth I dying without an heir and the throne thus being inherited by Scottish James VI (and in England, James I) as her closest worthy relative??
All of this discussion of Scotland being independent from the UK reminds me of Catalonia being independent from Spain: independentists say that they want to have control over their own resources, Unionists say that the economy will go downhill after the independence. But the difference is that Scottish independentists have a more valid point than their Catalonian counterparts (Disclaimer: I am in favor of Scotland still being part of the UK), but Catalonians are more likely to be successful (Another disclaimer: I also am in favor of it being part of Spain). However I bet that the people wanting Catalonian independence is because they speak another language and because Spain's regions hate each other.
Yes, a lot of the Yes voters are uninformed and just wanted to give a middle finger to England "HA! LOOK AT US! HAHAHA! WHAT'RE YA GONNA DO NOW!?". They don't really think about the actual consequences of independence.
Yes Crazy.Or was it? The canal showed what was possible.Patterson was just ahead of his time, but combined with lack of logistical planning it was at same time inept and over ambitious for a country our size and resources Same guy who helped found the Bank Of England so not a dolt. I rather admire the fact they had a bash against the big European powers despite their own king basically doing all he could to thwart it. If not for that lots of foreign investors would have shared the losses and so Scots nobles and merchants and burghs would not have been over invested.
WOW!!! Now, this is truely remarkable. In the neolitic era of youtube, Grey was already answering question that nobody asked, but apparently everybody wanted to know the answer.
If anyone can clarify here i'd appreciate it: Is he referring to how they became officially united government-wise while prior to this the Scottish and English monarchies had already been united by king James inheriting both thrones? (i.e. Even after King James got both crowns we were still separate countries until this jazz, correct?)
He is talking about when England and Scotland united *Politically*. It is not the same thing when a monarchy unites. Although they had the same king, they still governed themselves.
James Stuart had two different sets of heraldry after 1603, one for each country. There was a union act in 1603 which allowed commissioners from both countries to investigate the matter but actual union of the two countries didn't take place until the Acts of Union (1706 and 1707).
Quite so Bryon. And when union did come about Scotland was pressurised into it economically after the Scottish Parliament suggested they would choose a different monarch from England on the death of Queen Anne unless guarantees of non interference in domestic Scottish matters were given
English hate the fact they're not British they're actually Germanic. Welsh is a Saxon word for Briton. The story of the Welsh dates back to pre Roman times.
Which is what I pointed out GB means more than one thing. It can mean the political unit (ie Scotland, England and Wales with their many islands) or it can mean the large island itself. The 1707 union did create a united kingdom of Great Britain but it was commonly called Great Britain. The more formal use of the UK came about with the union with Ireland.
Sir Winston Churchill once said that ‘Of all the small nations of this earth, perhaps only the ancient Greeks surpass the Scots in their contribution to mankind.’
Because modern roads, the television, popularising the telephone, phone lines begets a telecommunication network which begets the internet which begets wireless communication which begets your smartphone...the very thing you read this on is made by the science built on scottish foundations about 100 years ago. Plus all Scotlands work in philosophy and the arts, our beginnings of abolishing slavery in British parliament and our outlook towards human rights.
The excellent CGP Grey has called it How Scotland Joined Great Britain but has already told us that Great Britain is the geographical name of the largest island in the British Isles i.e. where Scotland already is. Therefore she could not join it. Or have I missed something?
In this term, I think he is meaning the actual countries on it(excluding whales). A better name would be How Scotland Joinded the United Kingdom, as that's the technical term, but it's not the biggest of deals, as they technically joined what we now call Great Britain, so yeah.
The Union jack is often referred to as the British flag because of the empire, the truth is it became the flag of the Empire because England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland was all apart of the British royal navy and colonial forces, the flag represented 4 nations as 1 on the battle field and was later adapted to the symbol of the British empire.
Oscem111 It's the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Great Britain - Scotland, England and Wales (at that point Wales was part of England) United Kingdom initially - GB and Ireland (Great)Britain/British Isles - Geographical Terms. It should actually be HOW THE KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN WAS FORMED. Scotland joining with England (Wales in England) was what happened. The Kingdom of Great Britain was the product of the union.
As far as empires go I get the feeling that England gets all the hate because we were the most successful imperialists. God forbid someone say anything bad against the other countries of Europe with empires.
Stew182 And people shouldn't take what I'm saying the wrong way. I'm not saying the British Empire was a system built by saints or anything, far from it, during the Boer War we may be the first country to have used concentration camps (by accident but still). What I mean is that people, especially those outside of Europe, tend to believe that England was the only country guilty of imperialism.
Lazy Spark Yes. Let's be honest it's probably because we were the best at it, and the biggest empire prior to the realisation that empires aren't morally sound. I will say also that I am Scottish and notice that even here in Britain that people blame the empire on the English. The monarchy was already both countries, and following the act of union Scotland was a substantial part of the empire effort.
Stew182 As a matter of fact, something like fifty percent of British colonial civil service were composed of Scots, who thought of being a civil servant in the colonies a great job and a good opportunity for personal enrichment which indeed was. So the proportion of Scots in the British colonial civil service was rather unproportional for their share in Great Britain population. And quite the same facts can be applied for the share of the Corsicans (people from the island of Corse) in the French colonial civil service. Rather peculiar, I daresay.
England did not bully and blackmail Scotland into political union. It was simply the case of if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Why continue to keep a old dangerous rival at your southern border landlocked against the North Sea when you can united and become a stronger country together. Scotland agreed to this union and England has never ever conquered Scotland. Everytime they tried they got their assess booted back south of the border.
Except for Cromwell of course though one can argue that was also a similar civil war divide. I think you have to be honest and say that economic duress and pressure was an element in the Union,(Aliens Act etc) but I agree it was very much for Scotland a case of wanting access to English colonies and free trade to allow economic growth and after Darien this seemed only way.I think they negotiated a decent settlement but could have done better(a more federal set up).
Actually Scotland didn't get a vote, their leaders were blackmailed into accepting. That's why there was dozens of riots and violence in Scotland at the time. What they should have done was try to ally with the Irish/french and take england.
Ciarán O' Neill The rich lords of the South wanted a union but the Clans of the North didn't. To be honest, almost everyone in Scotland lived in the South, and when the Clans protested against union they were largely ignored (and for logical reasons).
Robitski you are way off. The Scottish Parliament was basically made up of Lowland lairds. The majority wanted to move away from England and break the regal union. The economic pressure and blackmail meant that the parliament accepted the union. Not the same as them all wanting it.
According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation an Development or OECD the UK is the 16the wealthiest country in the world, it projects, using Westminster governments projections by the way, that an independent Scotland would be 6th. There is no comprehensible way to argue that Scotland would be worse off if it becomes independent, make the right choice my fellow Scots!
Who is this silly little boy below "Aidan Boyles"? "I'm even Scots-English for Her Majesty's sake!" Moron. Scotland will be independent but will REMAIN in the Union of Crowns, so HM will remain our monarch.
downfall1996 www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Economy/GERS/GERS2014xls GERS is the study that all sides take their figures from in terms of economics, although you could have just Googled it yourself.
GERS is crap. It really doesn't give any sense of what an independent Scotland's wealth would be. GERS only portrays the here and now under the union and with the vast majority of Scottish-generated revenues hidden from us. Such as filling station receipts for petrol & diesel going to Tesco, Asda and Morrisons... whose head offices are in England, so all revenue receipts are allocated to those (English) corporate offices. There are many many examples of this kind of back-door robbery going on and GERS simply fails to register them. Independent studies however, have revealed the diversity and earnings potential of Scottish operations. It is extremely flippant to cite London as some kind of economic powerhouse and that being disconnected from it is somehow a loss. In fact the opposite is true... Scotland will be able to keep the revenues it generates FROM London... so London won't be nearly as big and powerful as it has been on the back of others' (especially Scotland's) wealth creation!
Actually that played no part in the union; James VI and I was the first king of the two countries in 1603, the Act of Union that made the Kingdom of Great Britain didn't happen until 1707. From 1603 to 1707 the two countries were independent of each other and just shared a monarch.
There were numerous smaller kingdoms in Britain in the first millenium. Gradually through merging and conquest the national states called Scotland and England emerged. Wales hadn't quite developed as that to the same extent when it was conquered by England. However it had developed enough to hold on to its national identity. So even though legally it became part of the English kingdom itself it never did popularly and in the 20thC it was again officually recognised that it was seperate
It is sad. Wales was conquered well before the union of the crowns and so didn't really have time to form it's own national identity. In fact, Wales was never even a kingdom...but rather a collection of kingdoms such as Gwynedd, Powys, Yns Mon etc.
YESSSS... I can't wait for Scottish independence, it's inevitable now with all of Scotland wanting to stay in the eu, defining the popular vote of the UK. They finally have a major thing that unites them, and, I don't know about you, but I would definetly want something that was taken away from me, especially if it's as important as EU membership. They must fight, I will fight for them. I hope you too
"Also Scotland has given a lot the the UK," You are absolutely right Freddrick. Scotland was initially blackmailed and bullied into union but of course the stability created (though it also had its down side) enabled both countries to reap the rewards. Scotland through the centuries has more than paid its way in the empire in toil and blood. In the two World Wars for instance Scottish losses per head of population far outstripped that for the UK as a whole. The modern world is different though. Politically Scotland and England have somewhat drifted apart and some in Scotland see the UK gvt as no longer representative of them. So the people will decide their future. In truth I suspect it will be a No vote. However the point is that the UK state is a voluntary state and that principle has been held for some time now. There would be a good deal of haggling should Scotland leave but the idea that the rump UK would invade is silly. The other poster obviously does not believe in a union of partners - he yearns for an English empire! There is no real support for that attitude and in reality history teaches it doesn't work. The UK tried to hold on to Ireland against the will of the Irish and look what happened there. Scotland would be much harded to hold on to you in a similar scenario.
We all need to remember that there is no UK or Great Britain without Scotland. Great Britain is Scotland, England and Wales united, all this talk by the Scottish first minister about Great Britain going against Scotland interests means that Scotland is going against Scotland's interest. Logic... England, Wales and Scotland are better united, we've fought in countless wars together and England and Wales already recognise Scottish National Identity. Scottish Independence is a pointless separation of a great united island of the north. We all need to treat each other as equals instead of judging people based on some line someone drew on a map
Hyped_Rock It is not pointless if the current situation leaves you feeing disenfranchised. Which is the case for many Scots. In the future if there was a shared interest then of course they would work together if Scotland was independent - as partners! What's so bad about that?
Alun Palmer Except the so called English disenfranchisement is only in effect theoretical. I think Scottish votes only ever made any difference on one occassion. On the other hand a Tory gvt currently runs Scotland whilst Scotland votes for only 1 Tory MP. Hardly comparable. Likewise as far as the devolution thing goes the UK has always been a devolved state apart from when Stormont was suspended for a while. No-one ever moaned about a West Belfast Question. Seemingly English Tories only object to Scots having votes in Westminster. After all Ulster Unionists used to side with the Tories anyway. It is political shenanigans nothing to do with English disenfranchisement. Even during the period where Labour were the gvt in both Westminster and Holyrood it was still the Scots were disenfranchised. Scots votes made no difference at westmisnter but over 60 Sewel Motions were carried. That is where legisaltion which should be devolved was pushed through westmisnter instead.
Wow I really learn something new I only New the Spanish were in Panama and the British in Belize but I had no idea that Scottish were there thanks for this video. ..
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are still their own country and have their own politics which English people don't have a say in. It's less of a bound Kingdom more like a conglomerate business now adays though.
+SH3LLHeAD England doesn't have a say in some of Scotland's budgets in the same vein that Boris Johnson doesn't have a say in Kent's council spending plans - devolution of power is consistent on all levels, and individual regions have a better grasp on their own issues as opposed to a bulky inefficient central bureaucracy that tends to favour London at the detriment of everybody else, so what's the problem?
It is not to be confused with Union of England and Scotland Act 1603 or Treaty of Union. The Acts of Union were two Acts of Parliament: the Union with Scotland Act 1706 passed by the Parliament of England, and the Union with England Act passed in 1707 by the Parliament of Scotland.
It's sort of true, Great Britain is merely the geographical term for the both nations united together, I think CGP meant that Scotland joined the union of England (Wales) and Ireland to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
I blame the BBC. The BBC is the most bias organisation in this country and have a lot to answer for. Not only that but they HATE England. It is evident now with the Scottish referendum. Now that there is call for "English devolution", the BBC are egging on the idea of "regional assemblies". Now if the BBC weren't bias, they would be looking at all of the proposals on the table to answer England's devolution crisis. They'd be proposing the same as what has been granted to Scotland i.e. an English Parliament. But no, you won't hear that get a mention by the BBC, not ever. They're disgusting.
Flame thrower The shite we get taught at school is amazing, pure and utter propaganda. Really, the history lessons boil up hate and make the English look evil and concentrates to no extent on how Scotland was an utter shithole until it united with England. And minimum wage Scottish people blame that on England; they have to find something to blame their misfortunes on, and usually it's England. Jeez, Westminster isn't exactly perfect, what what the hell makes these people think that Alex Salmond will make everything better? Will a big fuckin' rainbow appear and Salmond, in a tutu, will fly to their house and sprinkle magical dust at them and suddenly they'll become rich and happy? Plus, the entire population of Scotland is actually lower than that of London, of course we're not being fucking prioritized!
I'm a McDonald and this Campbell lad has the right idea, Scotland couldn't break away she'd be instantly bankrupt and what's left of the uk wouldn't be to happy. Scotland has it fine now and if it isn't broken don't fix it
ikeknights If I'm not mistaken, the Lion's share of it is owned by the British as a whole, not the Scottish. If Scotland broke off, they would lose access to most, if not all of the oil in the North Sea. I MIGHT be mistaken, so don't just take my word for it.
smudgethekat The "lion's share" of it is in Scottish territorial waters, so it's owned by Scotland Period. At the moment however, Westminster has sovereign authority over that territory... but a yes vote to independence means sovereignty being restored to Scotland's parliament... and the territory, and its assets, to Holyrood control.
Jock Campbell You've seen some of the excuses this country came up with to justify invading Iraq to take its oil. I don't think our government would have a problem with doing it again.
Hold on ther CGP Grey. You told me personally Great Britain is an island and the country is called United Kingdom. How can Scotland join an island? They were always part of it. :P
FunAsylum During world war 2 it was referred to as Great Britain, and since then no law or bill has been passed saying that it is mandatory you call the country 'UK'. The UK team is called team 'GB', and even politicians call their country Great Britian from time to time. It's because of political correctness that people mistake that UK is the sole name for the country.
+WelshNoble Great Britain is not a country. Truth is it hasn't since 1800 with union with Ireland. The "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is a Union-State. The only reason politicians call the place Britain is because it's an objective-reality and that's the core of the UK's power and identity. That's basically why they call the 'UK' team 'GB' because the 'UK' is not a nation; rather a Union of them and the term 'GB' is suppose to invoke pride. Political Correctness plays part, but in actual reality. It's a Union-State. Why do you think the Irish always called them "Unionists" to begin with.
WelshNoble, no it can't CGP Grey's most popular video is about this. Great Britain TODAY is the biggest ISLAND that England, Scotland, and Wales are located on. But before Northern Ireland joined, the KINGDOM was called Great Britain. So it USED to be the name, but now it is incorrect.
I'm mostly English and Scotch-Irish and I still don't get the whole Scots' disdain for England that lasts to this day. I mean, yes, I know about the story of William Wallace and the events during that timeframe and all but dude, that was hundreds of years ago, move on and if it wasn't for English money (as pointed out in this video) Scotland would've been nothing. Of all the hatreds to have (aside from racism and anti-Semitism) why that? It makes no freaking sense. Makes you wonder if Sicily feels the same about Italy itself even though it's been apart of Italy even before rise of the Roman Empire.
the disdain for england is not what you think its more specific than that its for the conservative party.The conservative party is mainly an english party which often gets an overall majority to rule the UK.The other major party is labour which gets support from all over the UK including scotland .The conservative party has only MP out 60 or 70 from scotland.So if you have a conservative government scotland has a government it didn't vote for so its really about democracy.Traditionally labour was the biggest party in scotland,but now top spot has been taken over by the Scottish National party,so even if labour get into power they will not have the support of the majority of scotland either.I am not scottish,but this does seem to be the crux of it all.They are other issues like oil revenues and how they are distributed.Its not really about history or Culture,because the scots don't have one.There is scottish highland culture alright ,but the rest of the country no.
***** I am Scottish and have no disdain for England or anyone who is English - in fact I am a quarter English and my girlfriend is English. What this video doesn't mention is the fact that the reason for the union wasn't just down to the funding of Scotland but also the bribing of the Scottish nobility by the already unified monarchy (who wanted its parliaments to join together). Again it had nothing to do with English people, but self-interested British monarchy and Scottish nobility. I did vote yes, but for political reasons - I am of the opinion that our Social Policy would be better run as a smaller and more social-democratic parliament, and that this requires independent tax raising etc. Some unfortunately cling to bigotry and identity - I do understand being proud to be Scottish but that shouldn't extent to hatred of the English (I have always felt British). It was a very long time ago yes, but the retaining of traditions, culture, political control over education and law etc, and even to an extent language has meant the feeling that Scotland should stand on its own has continued. The union was exactly that - a union. Scotland and England stayed as their own entities. The invasion of Wales and the turning it into a part of England has still meant their identity is somewhat less profound. As Joseph points out, the differing of political traditions has led to a conservatism being seen as an English ideal (mainly down to Thatcher I would say (and the same reason the North of England and Wales have disdain for the South East)). Also with the rightward movement of Labour, the SNP are now seen to represent the Social Democratic traditions of Scotland (which really aren't as profound or different to that many in England have to be honest). These divisions - cultural and political- have been stoked by the devolution of powers to Scotland, a Scottish Government who tries its best to exaggerate and do things differently to England, and a feeling that their policies have been successful. The modern approach to politics in Scotland has also led to some disdain towards the old-fashioned practices of Westminster. Both Scotland and England have aided and taken from one and other many times over the long and interesting history of Britain. To me, any hatred of England or the English is ignorant. If independence is really wanted, it should be on the basis of wanting to be self-sufficient, a feeling that it would benefit us, or politics based. Identity of course can play a role in this, but to hate people from, or to hate a country is bad. Importantly I will say that the majority in Scotland do not have disdain for England. There is also a perception that the English have disdain for Scotland - which I find to be widely untrue also.
Joseph Boland That disdain for the conservatives is not just felt in scotland its northern england aswell. Tories dont get voted for in liverpool or manchester or any of the other major cities in the north. Its the south east that vote for them.
Wait. The king of England, which was also the King of Scotland, Blocked himself from trade? WTF William II you really don't understand the Benefits of a Personal Union do you!
+MrMapperIL William II, King of England, died in 1100. You must be thinking of William III, predecessor of Anne, the first monarch of Great Britain. There was only so much the the monarch could do about government since England and Scotland were separate states with separate legislatures.
Melody Clark Maybe I mistyped. Thanks anyway. But the thing here is that a lot of the control was, after all, in the king's hands. We all know now that the King (or more precisely, Queen Anne) was the one to unite Britain.
Melody Clark There was a different Congress for each country, but the Congress those days was made up mostly by the King (that means, the king chose how many people from each faction will be in the faction, and who will lead it). That means that the English (or should I say dutch?) King William had a lot of control over Scotland and should have known that Scottish extension into Panama can greatly enlarge his power as a King, and if he didn't embargo Scotland, he might have been much more popular there and the Union could have came much sooner. Not that he have been a very popular king for the first place, what with the Glorious Revolution and all.
MrMapperIL King William as in William III, predecessor of Anne? If the monarch had so much control of the government then why would the English government refuse to help the Scottish government?
***** Spain doesn't get to negotiate that. Aragon and Castile have a completely different relationship than Scotland and England. Scotland is technically willingly part of the UK and has the right to leave via referendum. Aragon and Castile aren't exactly a single country willingly. And now, really it'd be everyone but Scotland who is the separatist, having left the EU.
Scotland is a country. They would leave a sovereign union, not separate from their nation. Aragon and Castile are not countries. Anyway, Spain still would have no say over it.
Again misleading. Spain said would not negotiate with Scottish government re some sort of sep EU relationship while Scotland still part of UK. Did not say would not deal with Scotland if independent. When did Netherlands say they would veto an independent Scotland joining EU? Certain economic collapse of Scotland? Really?
Daniel It really depends on whether you bother to read eg The GERs reports and proper economists reports The notion that Scotland could not survive as an independent nation is laughable .Worse off maybe yes but there would then be restructuring.At present the UK economy geared up to make London the power house and the cash cow at the sake of other regions.Like Ireland if Scotland went independent it would probably be hard times initially and even mid to long term and then improve.I am sure all the same sneering condescending comments were made re Ireland being able to survive. Its a question of whether enough Scots want to risk the pain and difficulty.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
It's weird to look back on Grey's videos before he adopted the whole 'stick figure' thing.
Nostalgia
It’s like… a RUclipsr
@@Chineseisntalanguageapparently wdym
@@RoTerra217 I mean before he personified himself with drawings, he used to be just a RUclipsr
@@Chineseisntalanguageapparently Makes sense
Um...did I completely miss the part where Scotland and England formed a dynastic union in 1603 after the Scottish king, James VI, succeeded to the English throne as well upon Elizabeth I's death? Officially they remained two separate countries, but this was still a crucial step toward their eventual unification, since their thrones remained united from that point on.
Wolfeson28 Yep. In particular the monarchy drove the union formation through the bribing of Scottish nobility. Wanted to unify its parliaments.
Wolfeson28 Yeah massive hole in that video. As well as the flags were united during and the instruction of James VI/I
+Matthew Frank PLUS the fact that under Cromwell Scotland was invaded and forcibly unified!
Alexander Marshall Both *Ireland* and *Scotland* were annexed to the English Commonwealth during Cromwell's rule.
Yeah, but this video is only about Scotland
scots in panama? sounds like something you would do in total war.
worse would be greeks in Greenland.
Yup, plus civilization gone mad.
I had the mughal empire and the iroquis trade regions once, it lead to an indian province the middle of America and a native american province in the middle of india
dragonkingofthestars I
In one of my games, Russia held Cuba for the whole second half of the 18th century.
And next month it might all end. Whoa.
Is that a Ric Flair Whooa
Jay Plejaren more like a Keanu Reeves "whoa"
sorry to disapoint
but the union stands but a mire 5% strong
Brady Ward Correction 10% Strong. 55.3% No, 44.7%. 2 million wanted to stay in the UK and 1.6 million wanted to leave the UK. 400K is a big difference when the country is so small.
Nope.
I think I'm addicted to this guy's videos...
Two podcasts even! Cortex is pretty good too.
Perfectly natural phase of life.
Worry not my dear.
I wonder is this is where we get our stereotype about being stingy with money.
I think that comes from Scrooge McDuck
Athiestforlife777 I think it's the other way round: Scrooge is like that because of the cliché of the Scotsmen. The stereotype is way older than Carl Barks invention of Scrooge McDuck.
Sir Harry Lauder usually takes the blame for envoking that stereotype.
PokeEmblem 692 Yeah he was born in Glasgow I think
PokeEmblem 692 all I know is Mr Krabs is an Irish
I love how at 0:13, he has placed flags exactly where they are meant to be. In India, for example, the Portuguese had set up bases in Surat in Western India, the French had set up their base in Pondicherry in South India and the British had set it up in Bengal in East India.
I mean it’s CGP Grey, I’d be more surprised if that wasn’t the case
he forgot a portuguese flag in Brazil
Only 250 people were allowed to vote on whether to unify with England, of which 180 of them voted. Unsurprisingly most of them were given promises of money, land and titles in exchange for their votes. This caused uproar among the general population, as the vast majority were against it at the time.
Mitjitsu That's right, not such a democratic procedure.... It also went against English Law, and the Scottish Constitution, which is why attempts to unify the two kingdoms were denied previously, (there was previous attempts to unite the two countries into one). The Act of Union of 1707 is an illegal creation that which was created by Elites for their own purpse. How this occured was the corruption of the English Parliament to ratify the Act.
Right, because free and fair votes were happening all over the world in the 17th century.
+Rex .Utimatum But if it hadn't have happened Scotland would have been invaded by England without choice. And for 1707 I think it was a democratic procedure when the normal thing to do would have been to annex Scottish territory.
+Robloxian BBC News Not many countries actually opt to be invaded by choice! There was no certainty it would have gone that way. Nor any certainty if force was used it would have worked.England had tried on and off for 600 years to subsume Scotland.Who know what would have happened if force was actually deployed Truth was neither side wanted war particularly from an economic standpoint.
Alan McEwing
Scotland had no economy in 1707 they blew it by heavily investing in a failed colonisation project.
Love "The cunning use of flags" reference :)
+Saifthebest01 Eddie Izzard - an English Comic from the 90's - has a big sketch about how England took over the world through the use of Flag and being awfully polite.
I love that Eddie Izard sketch
@Posh C*** If you want to be technical, it is English and correct. Anyway, nice *reference*
I love how the English flag doesn't just go over the Scottish flag, but actually cuts through it.
Decent video, but would be worth mentioning that the "English" Royal Family at the time was in fact Scottish - The Stuarts.....should definitely have mentioned 1603 and the ascension of James VI of Scotland to the title of James I of England!
bro portugal itself is effectively a british colony with local laws and representation.
@@mahmoodali5043 what?
Scotsmen: The only men who can wear skirts while looking manly.
The Irish wear kilts too.
ikeknights they don't look manly though.
***** lol
ikeknights and welsh
ikeknights no we don't :)
When he overplayed the English and Scottish flags to create the British flag, my life fell apart. I couldn't handle such a devastating revelation
Sure, it’s a BIT of an oversimplification, but that doesn’t make a “The only time I’ve seen a country fail so badly at colonization that they got annexed” line any less funny
algarve in portugal is almost a british colony during summer.
yup.
summer now. algarve is packed with lagostas (means lobsters) we called english tourists lobsters because they try to get a tan like the more darker skin colour and used to the climate Mediterranean people. obviously they are way too white for that and get easily sunburn and turn orange and look like lobsters.
Haha, I'm a British person on holiday in the Algarve right now
Met a Portuguese girl recently and was excited to tell her all about my holidays in Portugal! She took one look at me and said "Algarve?"
RIP my dreams of appearing cultured...
Just like Benidorm in Spain
It happens a lot in Australia too. If people ask me what nationality I am, and I say I'm Australian (I was born here, but my parents weren't) they either laugh and say "You don't look Aussie" or ask "No, where are you from really?" but if I say I'm Italian that's perfectly acceptable.
The first ship shown while you discussed the journey around the Cape of Good Hope and Cape Horn was a tops'l schooner, a rig of ship that would be woefully unsuited for a long ocean journey like the one required to round either cape.
1:49 blew my mind.
CGPGrey, I am hopelessly confused about the history and organization of the Holy Roman Empire. If anyone can clear things up, it's you. Please make a video about the HRE!!!
Well basically: We (germans) Had a king. That king was elected by lords (we had like 6-7 of them I think) who ruled over places roughly the size of saxony or bavaria. To get elected, he had to promise these lords or power or straight up bribe them which is why they got more and more power over time until we completely fell apart and were only one country by name. Oh and the king used to be crowned Kaiser by the pope, didn't change his direct power, but was huge for prestige.
A few unification wars and a whole lot of bismarck later, we had the second Reich, the Kaiser-Reich up until Willhelm the Second and World War 1.
BtW which is why the nazi germany was called the Third Reich. (Reich meaning kinda "Realm" and " Kingdom" at the same time) .
Basically Germany
@MrMarmalad nothing of the sorts. Asia is made up of many different cultures whilst the area inhabited by the hre was all german besides the few italian states. Today its a bit different as Germany and Austria have lost lots of land since then but the core of the hre is still where germans live today.
The HRE in a nutshell
A mess
"The cunning use of flags..."
Love it. ...and, it's a shame more people don't get that reference.
"No flag! No Country! That's the rules ...that I've just made up" I know what ya mean
Wow, never noticed the flags merging together to make the modern flag. Pretty cool.
"Expanding their empires with the cunning use of flags"
I'm sorry, was that an Eddie Izzard reference just now? You are the man if it was.
No flag, no country! Those are the rules that... I just made up! And I'm backing it up with this gun!
That I've borrowed from the National Rifle Associations!
So, this means that Scotland is not ruled by England, instead it is more like a "couple"? Thanks a lot, this cleared a lot of wrong points I had about this.
i agree, alot of people are misunderstood about the relationship between scotland and england
a couple where one of the partners, The Woman, England, Takes way more than her fair share :P
Fukhead McPot racist AND sexist... well done
***** However the majority voted to stay and so our kingdoms stay as one. However, Scotland (along with Wales and Northern Ireland) were given more power to rule over their separate countries.
Hey...
0:10 Is that an Eddie Izzard reference?
Brutus Dogwurth I think so
Sure is
Holy shit why did I never make the connection that the Union Jack was the combination of the English and Scottish flags until now?
My mind was blown.
+cultureshock72 Mate is your middle name Colombo?
Arctik39 I can't tell if you're making fun of me or not lol.
+cultureshock72 Actually, that is not completly true. The Union Jack is a combination between Scotland's flag, England's flag and the flag of the former Kingdom of Ireland.
See now I thought it was England, Scotland, and Wales from one of his more recent videos.
0:46 So Scottish ships can magically travel through Ireland? Wow!
At first, I thought I had left my Dwarf Fortress open, but then I realized that the music was just in the video. Nice video, and nice choice of song, CGP Grey!
any idea what its called?
@@XDflamesoffury dwarf fortress
Enjoyed that history lesson, thank God for RUclips. 2/10/2014. Irish time 13:36. Thursday.
Makes me proud to be British when I see all those flags that marked out our territory.Many Irish catholics in the 19th century joined the famous Irish regiments that fought as Britons but were lost after 1922 and partition does that not make your chest swell with pride Paul (lol mate)
LEGGIE 65 LEGGIE65 chest swell if your Scottish independence but not british, now your just grown adults who never left the british orphanage that you were left in 1707 by your Scottish ancestors.
As I said to you in earlier posts there's many Catholic No's and theres many Protestant yes's the country is divided you may end up with many James Connelly types or Wolfe tones as many Protestant yessers said after the vote they were going to Ireland to stay.
I stumbled across this comment exactly 10 years after you wrote it.
Oh the story is actually sillier than the video suggests. They actually started with 1200 Scots, who encountered the problems described above...
...then a month later Scotland sent two more ships with 300 more Scots to bolster things, except one of them burnt down accidentally, and the other Scots on the other ship saw how screwed everything was, tried to flee to Jamaica, and died of disease on the way.
And because it was the 1690's and news travelled slow, 1000 more Scots landed on the gulf and did it all AGAIN.
I really like the use of rage comic characters, really tells you about the internet culture that was around when this video was made.
The Pound was actually Scotland's currency before the union, Sterling was used by England, hence when the union was formed, the two currencies were joined and made synonymous, hence 'Pound-Sterling'.
Also, William Patterson, the Scot who founded the Bank of England.
The Union transformed Scotland from a Feudal State to a State of Law. The following Enlightenment Period brought the Industrial Revolution. Scots thrived building the Empire.
Had Scotland not united with England, it might have ended up being something like Albania or Moldavia.
Or more likely like Norway or Denmark, considering the population, geography and natural resources available.Certainly would have been very different but who knows
DMPepe Hi - I think if you look at the development of Law and Commerce in England, Scots made major contributions to modernize a legal system that had been adopted unchanged from essentially-Norman Law. Law in Scotland, on the other hand,, while it introduced elements of Feudalism,, was continuously developed to incorporate many European elements including some Roman Law
Very much doubt it mate considering to this very day Scotland 🏴 is still the 14th richest country in the world
As part of uk no.6 richest
1:44 they must've really trusted whoever sailed that ship...
IntensePeppers: They must have been good sailors.....according to the animation they sailed right across Ireland !!
@@paganphil100 lol
I love CGP Grey videos, but I have to point out that the prior video refers to Great Britain as more of a geographic term (the island itself) than a political one, while United Kingdom is the political term. In that sense, Scotland has always been a part of Great Britain at least in the historical sense. So the title really should be, "How Scotland joined the United Kingdom"
Or 'How Scotland united with England'. The UK didn't exist until 1801. The kingdom of Great Britain was actually a country rather than a union, that is until Ireland joined.
I agree with Scottish and Welsh independence!
I must say I LOVE the music at the end.
Cant tell the difference between a Grey vid 10 years ago and one last week
That moment when you realize the Union Jack is just the English and Scottish flags mashed together
That moment I was five
Also I'm swedish
Also it's the kingdom of Ireland's flag too
It makes the red cross that makes no sense except for matching with the scottish white cross
There is a third component which becomes part of it later on; the Irish Cross, representing Northern Ireland.
The beauty is that the Australian Flag is blue because of Scotland.
It's blue because of the ocean. Unless you mean the blue part of their Jack.
Sam Wolfenstein
The blue around the flag is for continuity with thew colour of Scotland. Similar to the flag of Azad-Kashmir using the shade of Green present on the Pakistan Flag. Maybe it is not blue for Scotland, bu the colour which dominates the flag is what it is because of Scotland. :)
1. the isle of man is a seperate state that reconginses the queen as head of state but has its own parliment and laws e.g. no speed limits outside of towns. Cornwall is part of England and therefore not a colony.
2. the english empire was merged into the British Empire as the Kingdom of Scotland and England became one offical nation and therefore the English empire was 'renamed' the British empire.
“Of all the small nations of this earth, perhaps only the ancient Greeks surpass the Scots in their contribution to mankind.”
― Winston S. Churchill
Churchill said that? neat.
Scotland wouldn't be honoured if a murderer psychopath said good things about it
apple's lover wtf?
Churchill was a murderous psychopath who committed several war crimes, numerous crimes against humanity, and denied the native american genocide.
Duatia That is absolutely untrue I don’t know where you heard it but that’s BS. If it wasn’t for him you would be living under a Nazi regime
Half of Scotlands population has watched this video
Let that sink in
Found your videos today. Love them!
We demand a Wales video!
Anglo-Saxons land in England.
They conquer Cornwall.
They try to conquer Scotland but fail.
They try to conquer Wales but fail.
They try again and win.
Henry VIII unites England and Wales.
The Anglo-Saxons didn’t try to conquer Wales because they were too busy dealing with the vikings .
@BeastlyVoldemort - I’m not sure that’s needed given that the reason Wales joined the U.K. was because at the time it was considered a part of the Kingdom of England .
@@Valencetheshireman927 this comment came out 6 years ago and your still trying to correct it
@@womanrespector7373 actually I was responding more to the comment from five months ago again I was trying to correct it for other people to see rather than the person who write who most likely won’t see this
Correct me if I'm wrong; But wasn't the Union formed through Elizabeth I dying without an heir and the throne thus being inherited by Scottish James VI (and in England, James I) as her closest worthy relative??
No.That was the union of the crowns.James VI tried for political union too but was opposed mainly by English parliament.
"...through the cunning use of flags." The CGP/Eddie Izzard crossover is beautiful...
All of this discussion of Scotland being independent from the UK reminds me of Catalonia being independent from Spain: independentists say that they want to have control over their own resources, Unionists say that the economy will go downhill after the independence.
But the difference is that Scottish independentists have a more valid point than their Catalonian counterparts (Disclaimer: I am in favor of Scotland still being part of the UK), but Catalonians are more likely to be successful (Another disclaimer: I also am in favor of it being part of Spain).
However I bet that the people wanting Catalonian independence is because they speak another language and because Spain's regions hate each other.
Yes, a lot of the Yes voters are uninformed and just wanted to give a middle finger to England "HA! LOOK AT US! HAHAHA! WHAT'RE YA GONNA DO NOW!?". They don't really think about the actual consequences of independence.
@@RobitskiStudios A bit like Brexit then
@@kevingeoghegan294 gottem
Panama.... That was some plan - judging by the mentality behind it, it sounds as though Salmond's relatives where in charge in 1690's as well xD
Yes Crazy.Or was it? The canal showed what was possible.Patterson was just ahead of his time, but combined with lack of logistical planning it was at same time inept and over ambitious for a country our size and resources Same guy who helped found the Bank Of England so not a dolt.
I rather admire the fact they had a bash against the big European powers despite their own king basically doing all he could to thwart it.
If not for that lots of foreign investors would have shared the losses and so Scots nobles and merchants and burghs would not have been over invested.
Seeing the thumbnail forced an "I WAS IN A VERY FAMOUS TTTTTVVV SHOOOOOOOWWWW" out of me
did you get "cunning use of flags" from eddie izzard by any chance
Oh God, those rage faces
+Dirk Bogan it was 2011 chill man
WOW!!! Now, this is truely remarkable. In the neolitic era of youtube, Grey was already answering question that nobody asked, but apparently everybody wanted to know the answer.
1:27
Nova Scotia LITERALLY MEANS ‘NEW SCOTLAND’
in what language?
@@ashaydwivedi420 Latin I think
@@ashaydwivedi420 or probably scottish
If anyone can clarify here i'd appreciate it:
Is he referring to how they became officially united government-wise while prior to this the Scottish and English monarchies had already been united by king James inheriting both thrones?
(i.e. Even after King James got both crowns we were still separate countries until this jazz, correct?)
He is talking about when England and Scotland united *Politically*. It is not the same thing when a monarchy unites. Although they had the same king, they still governed themselves.
Spudfud And Ewanwii
Thanks for explanation. CGP should've clarified that in the video, makes the whole thing a bit misleading.
No problem :)
James Stuart had two different sets of heraldry after 1603, one for each country. There was a union act in 1603 which allowed commissioners from both countries to investigate the matter but actual union of the two countries didn't take place until the Acts of Union (1706 and 1707).
Quite so Bryon. And when union did come about Scotland was pressurised into it economically after the Scottish Parliament suggested they would choose a different monarch from England on the death of Queen Anne unless guarantees of non interference in domestic Scottish matters were given
The one channel I actually WANT the annotations on.
always wondered how the union jack was formed
Do a video on Wales.
+Kyle Netherwood but Wales was simply conqueed, no story needed
+Jay Girgis they were shaggin' sheep instead of fighting
English hate the fact they're not British they're actually Germanic. Welsh is a Saxon word for Briton. The story of the Welsh dates back to pre Roman times.
William Llwyn that was a very long time ago...
William Llwyn Most people don't even know or care.
I love the background scores of these videos..
0:10 Eddie Izzard FTW! XD
When Rage Comics was still cool
Which is what I pointed out GB means more than one thing. It can mean the political unit (ie Scotland, England and Wales with their many islands) or it can mean the large island itself. The 1707 union did create a united kingdom of Great Britain but it was commonly called Great Britain. The more formal use of the UK came about with the union with Ireland.
Sir Winston Churchill once said that ‘Of all the small nations of this earth, perhaps only the ancient Greeks surpass the Scots in their contribution to mankind.’
Because whisky.
Because modern roads, the television, popularising the telephone, phone lines begets a telecommunication network which begets the internet which begets wireless communication which begets your smartphone...the very thing you read this on is made by the science built on scottish foundations about 100 years ago. Plus all Scotlands work in philosophy and the arts, our beginnings of abolishing slavery in British parliament and our outlook towards human rights.
...and IRN BRU
Krontok aye but whiskey mainly
Aye whiskey mainly
So if Scotland breaks away, will it repay England the money plus 300 years' interest?
only if england makes them
That will pale in comparison to the trillion pounds of debt the UK has. How to split that and how we'll repay it is a hot topic of debate
If they pay back the oil revenue and extra tax money they received from Scotland, arguing over things like that is petty.
The way CPG Grey describes Scottland, 'she' sounds so cute!
The excellent CGP Grey has called it How Scotland Joined Great Britain but has already told us that Great Britain is the geographical name of the largest island in the British Isles i.e. where Scotland already is. Therefore she could not join it. Or have I missed something?
In this term, I think he is meaning the actual countries on it(excluding whales). A better name would be How Scotland Joinded the United Kingdom, as that's the technical term, but it's not the biggest of deals, as they technically joined what we now call Great Britain, so yeah.
icecoldbite I think you've got it, icecoldbite!
The United Kingdom used to be known as Great Britain (including Wales)
The Union jack is often referred to as the British flag because of the empire, the truth is it became the flag of the Empire because England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland was all apart of the British royal navy and colonial forces, the flag represented 4 nations as 1 on the battle field and was later adapted to the symbol of the British empire.
Oscem111 It's the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Great Britain - Scotland, England and Wales (at that point Wales was part of England)
United Kingdom initially - GB and Ireland
(Great)Britain/British Isles - Geographical Terms.
It should actually be HOW THE KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN WAS FORMED.
Scotland joining with England (Wales in England) was what happened.
The Kingdom of Great Britain was the product of the union.
As far as empires go I get the feeling that England gets all the hate because we were the most successful imperialists. God forbid someone say anything bad against the other countries of Europe with empires.
Lazy Spark Yeah the British Empire gets all the flack, look at what Belgium did in the Congo - shocking.
Stew182 And people shouldn't take what I'm saying the wrong way. I'm not saying the British Empire was a system built by saints or anything, far from it, during the Boer War we may be the first country to have used concentration camps (by accident but still). What I mean is that people, especially those outside of Europe, tend to believe that England was the only country guilty of imperialism.
Lazy Spark Yes. Let's be honest it's probably because we were the best at it, and the biggest empire prior to the realisation that empires aren't morally sound.
I will say also that I am Scottish and notice that even here in Britain that people blame the empire on the English. The monarchy was already both countries, and following the act of union Scotland was a substantial part of the empire effort.
Stew182 As a matter of fact, something like fifty percent of British colonial civil service were composed of Scots, who thought of being a civil servant in the colonies a great job and a good opportunity for personal enrichment which indeed was. So the proportion of Scots in the British colonial civil service was rather unproportional for their share in Great Britain population. And quite the same facts can be applied for the share of the Corsicans (people from the island of Corse) in the French colonial civil service. Rather peculiar, I daresay.
Lazy Spark Spain and the USA actually used concentration camps before the boer war.
I love his taste of music,Celtic Impulse is a great tune
Where is the Poertuguese flag on Brazil?
Eu pensei isso também
England did not bully and blackmail Scotland into political union. It was simply the case of if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Why continue to keep a old dangerous rival at your southern border landlocked against the North Sea when you can united and become a stronger country together. Scotland agreed to this union and England has never ever conquered Scotland. Everytime they tried they got their assess booted back south of the border.
Except for Cromwell of course though one can argue that was also a similar civil war divide.
I think you have to be honest and say that economic duress and pressure was an element in the Union,(Aliens Act etc) but I agree it was very much for Scotland a case of wanting access to English colonies and free trade to allow economic growth and after Darien this seemed only way.I think they negotiated a decent settlement but could have done better(a more federal set up).
Actually Scotland didn't get a vote, their leaders were blackmailed into accepting. That's why there was dozens of riots and violence in Scotland at the time. What they should have done was try to ally with the Irish/french and take england.
Ciarán O' Neill sure, black mail,when they had won every previous war. That's showing some backbone.
Ciarán O' Neill The rich lords of the South wanted a union but the Clans of the North didn't. To be honest, almost everyone in Scotland lived in the South, and when the Clans protested against union they were largely ignored (and for logical reasons).
Robitski you are way off. The Scottish Parliament was basically made up of Lowland lairds. The majority wanted to move away from England and break the regal union. The economic pressure and blackmail meant that the parliament accepted the union. Not the same as them all wanting it.
Through the cunning use of flags? Is that an Izzard reference? I think so...
According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation an Development or OECD the UK is the 16the wealthiest country in the world, it projects, using Westminster governments projections by the way, that an independent Scotland would be 6th. There is no comprehensible way to argue that Scotland would be worse off if it becomes independent, make the right choice my fellow Scots!
Who is this silly little boy below "Aidan Boyles"?
"I'm even Scots-English for Her Majesty's sake!" Moron.
Scotland will be independent but will REMAIN in the Union of Crowns, so HM will remain our monarch.
Sources for this? I find it hard to believe that Scotland would be the 6th wealthiest nation in the world.
OECD.
downfall1996 www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Economy/GERS/GERS2014xls
GERS is the study that all sides take their figures from in terms of economics, although you could have just Googled it yourself.
GERS is crap. It really doesn't give any sense of what an independent Scotland's wealth would be. GERS only portrays the here and now under the union and with the vast majority of Scottish-generated revenues hidden from us. Such as filling station receipts for petrol & diesel going to Tesco, Asda and Morrisons... whose head offices are in England, so all revenue receipts are allocated to those (English) corporate offices. There are many many examples of this kind of back-door robbery going on and GERS simply fails to register them.
Independent studies however, have revealed the diversity and earnings potential of Scottish operations.
It is extremely flippant to cite London as some kind of economic powerhouse and that being disconnected from it is somehow a loss. In fact the opposite is true... Scotland will be able to keep the revenues it generates FROM London... so London won't be nearly as big and powerful as it has been on the back of others' (especially Scotland's) wealth creation!
You forgot about the fact that James the Vll became James the l of England and Scotland 😤😤😤
Actually that played no part in the union; James VI and I was the first king of the two countries in 1603, the Act of Union that made the Kingdom of Great Britain didn't happen until 1707. From 1603 to 1707 the two countries were independent of each other and just shared a monarch.
When the animation where the two flags come together came my mind blew the roof off.
Y U skip over James 1 and those personal unions?
*See's a CGP Grey video that hasn't been watched*
"Alright! A video I haven't seen yet!"
*Six years old*
"Holy shit!"
There were numerous smaller kingdoms in Britain in the first millenium. Gradually through merging and conquest the national states called Scotland and England emerged. Wales hadn't quite developed as that to the same extent when it was conquered by England. However it had developed enough to hold on to its national identity. So even though legally it became part of the English kingdom itself it never did popularly and in the 20thC it was again officually recognised that it was seperate
"Kingdom of Scotland." COME ON MAN!
Well we were a kingdom up until 1707
No one ever talks about Wales
It is sad. Wales was conquered well before the union of the crowns and so didn't really have time to form it's own national identity. In fact, Wales was never even a kingdom...but rather a collection of kingdoms such as Gwynedd, Powys, Yns Mon etc.
Well FUCK Wales they have no good football teams and only one good player.
England 2 Wales 1 - EURO 2016
***** Goddamn millenials
1:00 Minecraft Reference! The black stone is obsidian, and when you try to dig it with a pickaxe, it takes a LONG time to break.
Well done Sherlock! You solved yet another mystery!!
LOL I finally Understood the Flag of United Kingdom.
but we will never understood the new changed flag of UK after Scotland break up from rest of the UK!
David Black oof
@David Black - IF
Hey Scotland, it's me, Brexit. Your time is now! Rebel!
YESSSS... I can't wait for Scottish independence, it's inevitable now with all of Scotland wanting to stay in the eu, defining the popular vote of the UK. They finally have a major thing that unites them, and, I don't know about you, but I would definetly want something that was taken away from me, especially if it's as important as EU membership. They must fight, I will fight for them. I hope you too
Enjoy dying horribly when the EU collapses and the hedonism of Weimar Germany is reenacted.
Enjoy your time with your worthless pound then
Mathias Radenez >implying the Sterling would be worthless in the face of Euro collapse
That’s a good joke.
Tallest Skil
it is
Excellent Eddie Izzard line! One of my personal favorites! ;)
"Also Scotland has given a lot the the UK," You are absolutely right Freddrick. Scotland was initially blackmailed and bullied into union but of course the stability created (though it also had its down side) enabled both countries to reap the rewards. Scotland through the centuries has more than paid its way in the empire in toil and blood. In the two World Wars for instance Scottish losses per head of population far outstripped that for the UK as a whole. The modern world is different though. Politically Scotland and England have somewhat drifted apart and some in Scotland see the UK gvt as no longer representative of them. So the people will decide their future. In truth I suspect it will be a No vote. However the point is that the UK state is a voluntary state and that principle has been held for some time now. There would be a good deal of haggling should Scotland leave but the idea that the rump UK would invade is silly. The other poster obviously does not believe in a union of partners - he yearns for an English empire! There is no real support for that attitude and in reality history teaches it doesn't work. The UK tried to hold on to Ireland against the will of the Irish and look what happened there. Scotland would be much harded to hold on to you in a similar scenario.
We all need to remember that there is no UK or Great Britain without Scotland. Great Britain is Scotland, England and Wales united, all this talk by the Scottish first minister about Great Britain going against Scotland interests means that Scotland is going against Scotland's interest. Logic... England, Wales and Scotland are better united, we've fought in countless wars together and England and Wales already recognise Scottish National Identity. Scottish Independence is a pointless separation of a great united island of the north. We all need to treat each other as equals instead of judging people based on some line someone drew on a map
Hyped_Rock It is not pointless if the current situation leaves you feeing disenfranchised. Which is the case for many Scots. In the future if there was a shared interest then of course they would work together if Scotland was independent - as partners! What's so bad about that?
It is actually England that is disenfranchised in the current situation, not Scotland
And an independent Scotland would give England back control of its own affairs
Alun Palmer Except the so called English disenfranchisement is only in effect theoretical. I think Scottish votes only ever made any difference on one occassion. On the other hand a Tory gvt currently runs Scotland whilst Scotland votes for only 1 Tory MP. Hardly comparable.
Likewise as far as the devolution thing goes the UK has always been a devolved state apart from when Stormont was suspended for a while. No-one ever moaned about a West Belfast Question. Seemingly English Tories only object to Scots having votes in Westminster. After all Ulster Unionists used to side with the Tories anyway. It is political shenanigans nothing to do with English disenfranchisement. Even during the period where Labour were the gvt in both Westminster and Holyrood it was still the Scots were disenfranchised. Scots votes made no difference at westmisnter but over 60 Sewel Motions were carried. That is where legisaltion which should be devolved was pushed through westmisnter instead.
1:05 Minecraft baby
Wow I really learn something new I only New the Spanish were in Panama and the British in Belize but I had no idea that Scottish were there thanks for this video. ..
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are still their own country and have their own politics which English people don't have a say in. It's less of a bound Kingdom more like a conglomerate business now adays though.
+SH3LLHeAD Northern Ireland is technically not an actual country
This laptop Never works What makes you think it's 'technically' not a country?
+SH3LLHeAD England doesn't have a say in some of Scotland's budgets in the same vein that Boris Johnson doesn't have a say in Kent's council spending plans - devolution of power is consistent on all levels, and individual regions have a better grasp on their own issues as opposed to a bulky inefficient central bureaucracy that tends to favour London at the detriment of everybody else, so what's the problem?
Da ve I was merely pointing out. How is there a problem?
I'd say the UK is more of a confederacy (look it up if you don't know what a confederacy is).
Anyone still here in 2019?
It is not to be confused with Union of England and Scotland Act 1603 or Treaty of Union. The Acts of Union were two Acts of Parliament: the Union with Scotland Act 1706 passed by the Parliament of England, and the Union with England Act passed in 1707 by the Parliament of Scotland.
It's not "How Scotland joined Great Britain" it's "How Scotland united with England". Err hello?
It's sort of true, Great Britain is merely the geographical term for the both nations united together, I think CGP meant that Scotland joined the union of England (Wales) and Ireland to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Simon Cooke Great Britain was a nation before the formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in the 1800s.
I blame the BBC. The BBC is the most bias organisation in this country and have a lot to answer for. Not only that but they HATE England. It is evident now with the Scottish referendum. Now that there is call for "English devolution", the BBC are egging on the idea of "regional assemblies". Now if the BBC weren't bias, they would be looking at all of the proposals on the table to answer England's devolution crisis. They'd be proposing the same as what has been granted to Scotland i.e. an English Parliament. But no, you won't hear that get a mention by the BBC, not ever. They're disgusting.
Christopher Reeves Totally true, but I don't know why they hate England, it's so strange?
Flame thrower The shite we get taught at school is amazing, pure and utter propaganda. Really, the history lessons boil up hate and make the English look evil and concentrates to no extent on how Scotland was an utter shithole until it united with England.
And minimum wage Scottish people blame that on England; they have to find something to blame their misfortunes on, and usually it's England.
Jeez, Westminster isn't exactly perfect, what what the hell makes these people think that Alex Salmond will make everything better? Will a big fuckin' rainbow appear and Salmond, in a tutu, will fly to their house and sprinkle magical dust at them and suddenly they'll become rich and happy?
Plus, the entire population of Scotland is actually lower than that of London, of course we're not being fucking prioritized!
I'm a McDonald and this Campbell lad has the right idea, Scotland couldn't break away she'd be instantly bankrupt and what's left of the uk wouldn't be to happy.
Scotland has it fine now and if it isn't broken don't fix it
What about oil revenue from the North Sea?
ikeknights If I'm not mistaken, the Lion's share of it is owned by the British as a whole, not the Scottish. If Scotland broke off, they would lose access to most, if not all of the oil in the North Sea. I MIGHT be mistaken, so don't just take my word for it.
smudgethekat The "lion's share" of it is in Scottish territorial waters, so it's owned by Scotland Period.
At the moment however, Westminster has sovereign authority over that territory... but a yes vote to independence means sovereignty being restored to Scotland's parliament... and the territory, and its assets, to Holyrood control.
Jock Campbell You've seen some of the excuses this country came up with to justify invading Iraq to take its oil. I don't think our government would have a problem with doing it again.
epicxbread Our economy would be durastically increased.
If it's yes, does cgpgrey's British empire video gain an asterisk?
I see someone is a fan of Eddie Izzard.
Hold on ther CGP Grey. You told me personally Great Britain is an island and the country is called United Kingdom. How can Scotland join an island? They were always part of it. :P
tom19971101 After England and Scotland formed a union it became the Kingdom of Great Britain, after Ireland joined too it became the UK
tyg Great Britian can be an alternative name for the UK.
FunAsylum During world war 2 it was referred to as Great Britain, and since then no law or bill has been passed saying that it is mandatory you call the country 'UK'. The UK team is called team 'GB', and even politicians call their country Great Britian from time to time. It's because of political correctness that people mistake that UK is the sole name for the country.
+WelshNoble Great Britain is not a country. Truth is it hasn't since 1800 with union with Ireland. The "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is a Union-State. The only reason politicians call the place Britain is because it's an objective-reality and that's the core of the UK's power and identity. That's basically why they call the 'UK' team 'GB' because the 'UK' is not a nation; rather a Union of them and the term 'GB' is suppose to invoke pride. Political Correctness plays part, but in actual reality. It's a Union-State. Why do you think the Irish always called them "Unionists" to begin with.
WelshNoble, no it can't CGP Grey's most popular video is about this. Great Britain TODAY is the biggest ISLAND that England, Scotland, and Wales are located on. But before Northern Ireland joined, the KINGDOM was called Great Britain. So it USED to be the name, but now it is incorrect.
0:10 Was that… an Eddie Izzard reference??
I'm mostly English and Scotch-Irish and I still don't get the whole Scots' disdain for England that lasts to this day. I mean, yes, I know about the story of William Wallace and the events during that timeframe and all but dude, that was hundreds of years ago, move on and if it wasn't for English money (as pointed out in this video) Scotland would've been nothing. Of all the hatreds to have (aside from racism and anti-Semitism) why that? It makes no freaking sense. Makes you wonder if Sicily feels the same about Italy itself even though it's been apart of Italy even before rise of the Roman Empire.
the disdain for england is not what you think its more specific than that its for the conservative party.The conservative party is mainly an english party which often gets an overall majority to rule the UK.The other major party is labour which gets support from all over the UK including scotland .The conservative party has only MP out 60 or 70 from scotland.So if you have a conservative government scotland has a government it didn't vote for so its really about democracy.Traditionally labour was the biggest party in scotland,but now top spot has been taken over by the Scottish National party,so even if labour get into power they will not have the support of the majority of scotland either.I am not scottish,but this does seem to be the crux of it all.They are other issues like oil revenues and how they are distributed.Its not really about history or Culture,because the scots don't have one.There is scottish highland culture alright ,but the rest of the country no.
***** I am Scottish and have no disdain for England or anyone who is English - in fact I am a quarter English and my girlfriend is English.
What this video doesn't mention is the fact that the reason for the union wasn't just down to the funding of Scotland but also the bribing of the Scottish nobility by the already unified monarchy (who wanted its parliaments to join together). Again it had nothing to do with English people, but self-interested British monarchy and Scottish nobility.
I did vote yes, but for political reasons - I am of the opinion that our Social Policy would be better run as a smaller and more social-democratic parliament, and that this requires independent tax raising etc.
Some unfortunately cling to bigotry and identity - I do understand being proud to be Scottish but that shouldn't extent to hatred of the English (I have always felt British).
It was a very long time ago yes, but the retaining of traditions, culture, political control over education and law etc, and even to an extent language has meant the feeling that Scotland should stand on its own has continued. The union was exactly that - a union. Scotland and England stayed as their own entities. The invasion of Wales and the turning it into a part of England has still meant their identity is somewhat less profound.
As Joseph points out, the differing of political traditions has led to a conservatism being seen as an English ideal (mainly down to Thatcher I would say (and the same reason the North of England and Wales have disdain for the South East)). Also with the rightward movement of Labour, the SNP are now seen to represent the Social Democratic traditions of Scotland (which really aren't as profound or different to that many in England have to be honest).
These divisions - cultural and political- have been stoked by the devolution of powers to Scotland, a Scottish Government who tries its best to exaggerate and do things differently to England, and a feeling that their policies have been successful. The modern approach to politics in Scotland has also led to some disdain towards the old-fashioned practices of Westminster.
Both Scotland and England have aided and taken from one and other many times over the long and interesting history of Britain. To me, any hatred of England or the English is ignorant. If independence is really wanted, it should be on the basis of wanting to be self-sufficient, a feeling that it would benefit us, or politics based. Identity of course can play a role in this, but to hate people from, or to hate a country is bad.
Importantly I will say that the majority in Scotland do not have disdain for England. There is also a perception that the English have disdain for Scotland - which I find to be widely untrue also.
Stew182 I am glad a scottish person has stepped up to explain it better.
Joseph Boland I agree.
Joseph Boland That disdain for the conservatives is not just felt in scotland its northern england aswell. Tories dont get voted for in liverpool or manchester or any of the other major cities in the north. Its the south east that vote for them.
Wait. The king of England, which was also the King of Scotland, Blocked himself from trade?
WTF William II you really don't understand the Benefits of a Personal Union do you!
+MrMapperIL William II, King of England, died in 1100. You must be thinking of William III, predecessor of Anne, the first monarch of Great Britain. There was only so much the the monarch could do about government since England and Scotland were separate states with separate legislatures.
Melody Clark Maybe I mistyped. Thanks anyway. But the thing here is that a lot of the control was, after all, in the king's hands. We all know now that the King (or more precisely, Queen Anne) was the one to unite Britain.
MrMapperIL
Can you give details to say how it was in Queen Anne's hands? All I really know is what CGPGrey said.
Melody Clark There was a different Congress for each country, but the Congress those days was made up mostly by the King (that means, the king chose how many people from each faction will be in the faction, and who will lead it). That means that the English (or should I say dutch?) King William had a lot of control over Scotland and should have known that Scottish extension into Panama can greatly enlarge his power as a King, and if he didn't embargo Scotland, he might have been much more popular there and the Union could have came much sooner. Not that he have been a very popular king for the first place, what with the Glorious Revolution and all.
MrMapperIL
King William as in William III,
predecessor of Anne? If the monarch had so much control of the government then why would the English government refuse to help the Scottish government?
cgp grey videos are great for meme history.
If only my state Sarawak will be independent like Scotland...
eh? scotland isnt independant yet
Where!?
Sarawak is the BEST place on Earth ^.^ (from USA) SAYA GEMBIRA
Sam Green in Malaysia. We are exploited. Remember Malaysia is not a country it is a colony that likes to sell our oil and gas for their benefits.
Bunny Boy terima kasih
And now it'll have that independence again because the English just destroyed the one thing that was keeping Scotland in the union.
***** Spain doesn't get to negotiate that. Aragon and Castile have a completely different relationship than Scotland and England. Scotland is technically willingly part of the UK and has the right to leave via referendum. Aragon and Castile aren't exactly a single country willingly. And now, really it'd be everyone but Scotland who is the separatist, having left the EU.
Scotland is a country. They would leave a sovereign union, not separate from their nation. Aragon and Castile are not countries. Anyway, Spain still would have no say over it.
No. The council and commission assess it, and it is their decision that is law. Singular nations in the union cannot veto that.
Again misleading. Spain said would not negotiate with Scottish government re some sort of sep EU relationship while Scotland still part of UK. Did not say would not deal with Scotland if independent. When did Netherlands say they would veto an independent Scotland joining EU? Certain economic collapse of Scotland? Really?
Daniel It really depends on whether you bother to read eg The GERs reports and proper economists reports The notion that Scotland could not survive as an independent nation is laughable .Worse off maybe yes but there would then be restructuring.At present the UK economy geared up to make London the power house and the cash cow at the sake of other regions.Like Ireland if Scotland went independent it would probably be hard times initially and even mid to long term and then improve.I am sure all the same sneering condescending comments were made re Ireland being able to survive. Its a question of whether enough Scots want to risk the pain and difficulty.
Hey! Kevin MacLeod is still around, that's pretty cool. I used his music for some videos back in 04ish
So where did Wales come from then?