Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Thursday, 26th November 2009

Battles are still making history after 700 years

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date:
01 December 2006
MEDIA CORRESPONDENT
WILLIAM Wallace and Robert the Bruce triumphed again last night - this time in a television poll to find Scotland's most significant historical moments.
The Wars of Independence, in which both played a dominant role, came top of a ten-strong list chosen by BBC viewers.

The fight to establish Scotland's nation status came ahead of other landmark episodes including the Declaration of Arbroath, the Enlightenment, the Reformation and the Highland Clearances.

The choice of viewers in Scotland's History: The Top Ten differed sharply from a list of ten key moments picked by a panel of academics for the show. Its choices included the First World War, the Scottish Empire and the 1707 Act of Union.

Professor Tom Devine, Edinburgh University's Sir William Fraser Chair of Scottish History, said it was significant that the viewers' choice had only one episode post-1800 - the life of the scientist James Clerk Maxwell.

Prof Devine, who led the panel of academics, said: "Scotland has traditionally for its identity looked to pre-Union Scotland, particularly to the period of the shaping of the nation.

"Undoubtedly Braveheart-ism in the 1990s has had an effect."

He also believed an upsurge in nationalism in the past three or four months had played a part. "People with an SNP sympathy might be likely to be more interested in the Scottish historical past", he said.

Professor Ted Cowan, an expert in Scottish history at Glasgow University, said: "I think the Scottish people have always had a great attraction to the period of the Wars of Independence. It's recognised as an iconic moment that secures the freedom of the nation."

The author Ian Rankin, the creator of Rebus, suggested viewers had not picked more modern episodes in Scottish history because they were not felt to be "historical". He said: "People might think history has got to be historical. For a lot of people, the opening of the Scottish Parliament would be far too recent an event."

The academics on the BBC show chose their top ten from a potential list of 30 historical contenders. Subjects they rejected included football, tartanry and the influence of Margaret Thatcher on Scotland.

Page 1 of 1

 
1

Paul,

01/12/2006 00:22:07

The industrial revolution anybody? the British Empire? Surely both of these are far more significant to the daily life of people today than ancient wars. And I am sure our more recent forefathers that fought in WWI and WWII would be a tad upset too.

2

chappie,

edinburgh 01/12/2006 01:05:14

free scotland!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

3

BillyB,

01/12/2006 01:17:10

Maybe people just picked these two events because they ARE the most important in Scotland history - the academics and "experts" had their say, got plenty of airtime, but not too many votes amongst a pretty sophisticated BBC2 audience. Because without Stirling Bridge and Bannockburn we would without doubt have been assimilated within an anglo norman state, and today have a status similar to Nothumberland or at best Wales. Instead, we had over four centuries of independence in which we established enough autonomy to survive three centuries of pure unionism and re-establish our own parliament. And we are now facing a general election in which the SNP might concievably win - pretty relevant stuff I'd say, 700 years on from the events themselves.

I saw the other choices, and all were important, but just simply not as important as 1297 and 1314. And to Paul #1 - Industrial revolution? - been there done it, and "British Empire", you are welcome to it. And as for our recent forefathers who fought in WW1 and WW2 - they have voted for 1314 as well.

4

ralph castellano,

baillieston 01/12/2006 02:57:44

the wars on independance where quite rightly the top of the list....forget ww1 forget...union act.....scotlands people have once again made a clear statement that they are proud scots....well my fellow counterymen....the time is now to stand shoulder to shoulder ....and go for a independant scotland......our own country for the people of scotland.....time is now to abolish athe act of unionism........scotland shall be free....and will be free....all we need is for true scots,and i mean true patriotic scots.....to stand together....alba gorbragh

5

ralph castellano,

baillieston 01/12/2006 03:05:52

on the year of our lord 1314 patriots of scotland starving and outnumbered charged the fields of bannockburn.they fought like warrior poets,they fought like scotsmen,and won there freedom.............scots should back independance......and if u dont id say that u r scared.....and if ur a scotsman.....then im ashamed to call myself one...............c'mon scotland.....stand together.....fffffffrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeddddoooommmmm......did wallace die for nothing

6

Graeme,

Hong Kong 01/12/2006 06:19:35

#4, You mean freedom to have higher taxes, free to lose all our good industry across the border, free to slip into European mediocrity status, free to have a bunch of insular inward looking chip on the shoulder socialists looking after us!

Another article in today's Scotsman estimates that there are up to 80 million Scots around the world. There will be 82 million once independence kicks in.

Its time........ to get some sense!

7

Comerscroft,

01/12/2006 07:43:12

Scotland living in the past-----as usual.

8

Comerscroft,

01/12/2006 07:48:17

Scotland is so entrapped in living in the past---who cares about 700yr old battles, for goodness sake?---that it's no wonder that present day problems don't even register.

All very well being 'proud Scots' etc, etc, but not much good when most of today's infrastructure is falling down.

9

IanW,

01/12/2006 07:57:23

Paul #1 - Both the industrial revolution and the British Empire are sognificant events/periods in our history. However they relate more to British history than Scottish which is what the article seems to have been about.

I agree that both of these are far more significant to the daily life of people today than ancient wars but then perhaps the 2 gulf wars are more relevant than the 2 world wars to our daily lives. I for one will never forget the sacrificies that our grandparents and great grand parents made during the world wars for our freedom.

I suppose it depends on how you consider history. Is it just meaningless dates in the past or is it something which defines our culture, etc.

10

Big Wee Man,

Aberdeen 01/12/2006 07:59:08

Graeme Hong Kong etc., you should be ashamed of yourselves. The bit of China that Graeme is in was lost to the so-called British Empire. All your objections are those of defeatism, not realism. Look how well Ireland has done. It used to be a backwater when it defined itself as being merely next door to England, and in conflict with it, but once it saw itself as European it prospered and modernised. So it will be with us. We are meant to be free.

Donald Trump is about to build his European Golf Base north of Aberdeen at a cost of one billlion dollars. His mother was Scottish so independence doesn't scare him: after all, the Americans did it in the same century as our sovereignty went under because of gross corruption and defeatism.

You need to get your head out of a Victorian History Book and start to look at the real world. Alba gu brath! Once we are free we can start to grow up.

It will be tough. There will be other battles to fight, but we will live and die as men and women, not whining money-grubbers and sell-out bureacrats.

Personally, I am looking forward to it. The problem with Scotland is the Labour Party: it sold its soul for votes and we are run by Blair's stooges.

11

1745,

edinburgh 01/12/2006 08:01:01

Who chose the panel? Where were Drs Wormold,Stewart & Lynch? How can the Declaration of Arbroath be omitted?, not to mention our National Bard?

Very disappointed in Dr Devine's leadership

12

griff,

scotland 01/12/2006 08:57:40

I was disappointed with the panel's choices - James Clerk Maxwell who featured 4th in the viewers' choice was completely set aside by the panel - a collective of historians and academics: what was their agenda ? The lady from Historic Scotland who was on the panel, was clearly against a number of the viewer's choices. Is she representative of Historic Scotland's approach to Scottish history ?

Rather predictably, the urbanist panel chose also to consign Robert Burns to obscurity. No matter, primary school children throughout the country will continue to be taught about him and read his poems. And this New Year, he will continue to exert his influence through the thousands of people who hold hands and sing 'auld lang syne.'

Thank you BBC Scotland for exposing the Intelligentsia in our midst.

13

Old Roy,

Black Isle 01/12/2006 08:59:44

10 - Big Wee Mannie - Do due diligence regarding Donald Trump and your results will change your mind regarding his ability and more importantly his credibility. Seen it all before up here, a chancer arrives in a posh car spouting marvellous opportunities to the benefit of the open mouthed peasants, only to have feet of clay leaving wreckage and disillusion behind.
Far away birds have fine feathers!

14

Douglas,

Bathgate 01/12/2006 09:04:38

D'you know what? I'm glad I don't move in the same social circles as the judges. If this is what passes for informed debate before making a decision then I despair. I sincerely hope that this wasn't an insight into the mechanics of "steering committees" and "working groups" or we're all doomed.
On a lighter, brighter note Ralph #4 + 5: couldn't have put it better myself.........unless I was sober and had a basic grasp of the English language. Warrior poets eh? No mention of the Ninja novelists?

15

Penicuik Laddie,

The clue is in the title 01/12/2006 09:12:18

WW1? Actually more Scots were killed in world war one per capita than any other nation in the world. Part of the "union dividend" no doubt. I dont see what is so great about something which led to death and grieving in virtually every town and village in Scotland. The industrial revolution? Well where was the financial dividend for ordinary Scots in that, most worked in appauling conditions whilst the profits, once again, drained away to London. As for being accused by Comerscroft of "living in the past"; DUH, that was the whole point of the exercise to consider the past. If you want an alternative to that watch Dr Who. Although I do think that there will be one event in the future which, if they ever run this again, will make it in the top ten; once Scotland regains its independence after finally being offered a chioce (for the first time in our history). I dont think its a question however of "Its time for independence", I think the time is long overdue by almost 300 years. Death to the union, long live Scotland.

16

Rubbersnap,

01/12/2006 09:17:07

BBC jumps on these awful "Top Ten" lists programmes and tries to give them a bit of gravitas ... which never works! It's all garbage too!

ANY list is going to be entirely subjective and open to disgreements. We're all going to disagree and believe someone got it wrong.

Ultimately, this list (as with the rest) is completely meaningless.

If ever Scotland gave the world anything of real INESTIMABLE value ... apart from its great engineers, scientists, explorers etc etc ... it was the Declaration of Arbroath ... and in particular ... these words; 'It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom ... for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."

The Declaration preceded many constitutions that form the legislature of many countries, including famously the US Constitution.

That is something to be proud of ... even though it wasn't quite what the Scottish Lairds had in mind at the time.

17

Reiver,

Edinburgh 01/12/2006 09:21:48

Can't we find an isolated (only need a small one) island for this miniscule bunch of people wanting a 'free' land ... they can even call it Alba or Caledonia in memory of their greatest achievements ...

Failing that ... why don't they just get on with their lives, or run for the real Parliament in Westminster as an independent with an independent Scotland as their one and only manifesto pledge - its the only way they'll effect any change and we know that they only enjoy the whining so ...

18

Astro Turf,

01/12/2006 09:26:08

Give it a rest.

19

Mikey,

01/12/2006 09:28:11

Yep, I can see how the votes of the Scottish people annoy the English lackeys that post here......

Train ticket south anyone? I promise to pay for anybody's ticket so that they can go to their spiritual home. On the proviso that they don't come back, of course!

Seriously though, most English people who live here make an effort to fit into Scottish society. It's the 'queen and country', half educated Scots that believe everything they're told by their English masters, that are the liability.

20

Reiver,

Edinburgh 01/12/2006 09:29:28

ps ... #10 ... the biggest battle will be taking our (the British) country from us (the British) ... do you really think that it would simply be greeted with an "Ah! yes old chap ... off you go with a part of our country" ... you do need to grow up bud !!!

Also, looking forward to canning the wee pretendie parliament - will save the country a fortune.

21

Lianachan,

Highlands 01/12/2006 09:30:34

There seemed to be a distinct anti-Highland bias within the panel. They rejected the Highland Clearances on the basis that nobody ever thinks about the Lowland Clearances. The effects of the clearances up here are still to be seen everywhere in the deserted glens. They are the reason most of us up here live around the coast, and the global impact made by, and legacy of, many cleared Highlanders who went on to be successful in other parts of the world is just as visible. Also, the Jacobites were rejected (and the Covenantors admitted!) despite the fact that Culloden effectively marked the end of the clan system - a societal structure with it's roots in the bronze age (if not before)!

22

Reiver,

Edinburgh 01/12/2006 09:35:10

#19 Mikey

This fully educated Scot, is British and equal in the Union to the Welsh, English and Northern Irish ... if you had started your education in anyway you would realise what a Union is ...

23

tkscothk,

Hong Kong 01/12/2006 09:43:07

Of course we relate to the War of Independence, it is the only time we ever won anything.

24

IanW,

Germany 01/12/2006 09:51:45

Reiver #22 - If you truly believe that as a Scot you are treated as the equal to the English then you are sadly mistaken.

England, in general, look down on Scotland and everything Scottish. We will never be fully equal until we are independent and can prove that we are better. The Welsh and Irish have exactly the same problem, English arrogance.

Don't get me wrong about the arrogance, England has a lot to be proud of and the English should be proud of their country, but we too are a proud nation and want to be just that a NATION and not just a forgotten region of Britain.

25

Bram Seer,

All of Scotland 01/12/2006 10:14:00

Isn't nostalgia a wonderful emotion,it brings about a euphoria for the past,that wraps us in comfort blanket that we deludedly believe is our history.
Strangely it was the Scotsman, this very news sheet that started this hype of vote listing with its seven wonders earlier this year.
Personally, I don't think that Scotland could given the world better contributions than those created by the fertile minds of Logie Baird or Bell,if we did nothing else than give the World, Television and the Telephone we would have indeed contributed enough, but this is only a small part of what Scotia's bairns have given to the World. Far more than any nation of our size. That is what we need to foster and be proud of.......... not the loss of her precious life blood often uselessly spent in barbaric battles.

26

Lock,

01/12/2006 10:23:14

Joe Public does not think the 1707 Act of Union was not one of the top significant events in Scottish history?

Why, if this is the case, do a lot of people never shut up about it 300 years on?

How could one of the most talked about issues in Scotland be deemed insignificant? Personally I would have it as round about THE most important thing that has happened with relevance to today. Whether you think it is good or bad, there is no doubt the Union has had a profound effect, and even to this day everyone is affected by it. The nature of most of the debate on this website revolves round it.

Why didn't people vote for it? Because they didn't read the question correctly I would guess. I would have to side with the academics on this one.

27

Kenmac,

01/12/2006 10:28:59

I'll bet that before Bannockburn there were a few Graemes on the sideline saying,

"See approach proud Edward's power!! They're gonna beat us.Let's not stand up for ourselves..."

We don't need to look forward to "European mediocrity" when many are prepared to be grateful for the crumbs from Prudence's table. In comparisons with other real small democratic nations in Europe we are well down the list in terms of standard of living,rate of pension, average wage and most other indicators of comparative measurement. Out transport infrastucture -roads, rail and ferries are appalling. We have no influence over many aspects of policy and are associated by many around the world as a subsidiary reghion of a clapped out former colonial power that clings pathetically to George W. This after the Americans have seen through him.
Many Scots have left Scotland under duress or transportation. The Scottishn diaspora is immense. Although Unionists seem to believe that we are uniquely unable to look after our own affairs it seems that once clear of the influence of Ukania many seem to prosper.Some others will not want to remain in an independent Scotland but others will want to return to a country that offers opportunity and hope. That would be a fair exchange.

28

Reiver,

Edinburgh 01/12/2006 10:36:37

#24 ... not sad and not mistaken, the only unfortunate thing is the small minded, chip on the shoulder nationalists within the United Kingdom ... if a Scot is not as equal as the rest of the country - why is there one in each of number 10 and number 11 Downing Street ...

Get on with it ... stop the whining and add some value, or just scared of a little challenge and work ?

29

IanW,

Germany 01/12/2006 11:03:25

Reiver #28 - I look forward the challenge of rebuilding MY country. It will be a lot of hard work after 300 years of oppression. No doubt there will be years ahead of struggle but I am willing to take my share of it.

In the long term Scotland will recover and be seen as an equal to any country.

By the way my comment about being sad and mistaken was to say that I disagree with your believe that all 4 elements of Britain are equal and not as a personal attack. There is a saying along the lines that everyone is equal but some a re more equal than others.

30

Joanna,

Cambs 01/12/2006 11:12:58

I'm amazed that a 700 year old battle came out top of this poll.......... even if it was the defeat of the Auld Enemy.

I bet a lot of those who voted relied on the film Braveheart for their 'knowledge' of 14th century Scotland.

Scotland has contributed so much to the modern world. Bell and Baird have been mentioned but there is also Fleming whose fabulous achievement of discovering penicillin led to huge advances in medicine and the treatment of disease. His discovery must have saved countless lives.

Everyone remembers Robert Burns and there is no doubt that he made a big contribution to literature and is a Scottish icon. But, there is also Walter Scott, Robert Louis Stevenson and the wonderful James M Barrie who created Peter Pan. Just with those four writers alone Scotland has a great deal to be proud of, never mind all the rest.

It is often said that Scotland has punched above its weight in the union ..... and there is no doubt that it has. Scotland deserves to be defined by far more than just a 700 year old battle.

31

Micropacer,

Inverness 01/12/2006 11:15:32

no7: "Scotland living in the past-----as usual."

Scotlands most significant historical moment!

Any ideas of Scotland most "historical" moment not from the past? Its going to be difficult to find unless you have a time machine.

Comerscroft you should maybe think before you post.

32

Neil,

9% Growth Party 01/12/2006 11:19:34

I am unimpressed with the professionals inclusion of "the Scottish city" & WW1, neither of which are particularly Scottish & exclusion of Burns & Maxwell but am impressed with the sophistication of the popular choice, particularly for Maxwell who is neither well known nor easily understood.

Penicuik Laddie 15 you demonstrate the "aren't we hard done by" attitude many Scots like to wallow in with "Actually more Scots were killed in world war one per capita than any other nation in the world". Actually a quick search shows Serbia's casualties in WW1 were 708,000 for a country barely larger than us while the entire UK casualties were 947,000.

http://threeworldwars.com/overview.htm

33

Paul,

01/12/2006 11:26:46

On reflection I concede that WWI and WWII were probably not the most significant historical moments but I do still think that the industrial revolution, our part in the British Empire and the Enlightenment have all been far more significant than the Wars of Independence. OK many would not like to be associated with the BE and its many negative aspects but like it or not we were a signifcant part of it.

Indutrial Revolution - gave us (and the rest of the world) technology, industrial production. It is THE most significant revolution the world has ever seen, and it started here and next door. There is barely a country in the world that does not wnat to industrialise. Maybe the trouble is that there was not "a moment" but it was certainly and event.

Enlightenment - gave us (and the rest of the world) scientific method, modern economics.

Bristish Empire - gave us loads and loads of money (admittedly mostly solen but significant nevertheless) and made England and us powerful way beyond our size.

I don't think the Union has had such a significant effect. If we become independent then would our political system be so different? I don't think so. If we become independent tomorrow would it change overnight? I don't think so. We will have the same kind of system we have now, just that it would be run by our own eejits instead of somebody elses. That, in the scheme of things, is not as significant as the above.

34

Shug,

UK 01/12/2006 11:29:49

Wembley 77 gets my vote!

35

Alfie the OK,

England 01/12/2006 11:31:28

Rats! The bookies win again. (I actually put money on Mel Gibson coming top)... ;-)

36

Reiver,

Edinburgh 01/12/2006 11:39:51

29. IanW ... the UK is a great country, needs a lot of work but if you're as keen as you say GREAT ... you're fellow Brit's welcome you to the challenge ... glad to see you are not just another small minded, neurotic, chip on the shoulder nationalist - because they are the real tragedy ... gosh, don't tell me thats exactly what you are ... yes, I pity your small mind.

For the record, Scotland has been recovering for about 299 years (300 next year I believe), the poverty and clan warfare much reduced (but, looking at these pages of comments, more education and less whining is probably still required) ... the Scot's have been partners in building an empire and are loved at home and abroad for their contributions to the world, this hardly seems oppressive !?

Equality is about giving everyone opportunity, no society can be fully equal and to be frank, neither should it be ... how else will you incentivise people to strive to be the best that they can be if you don't give them the kudo's for doing so.

...

37

Shug,

UK 01/12/2006 11:45:11

Look forward not back. Sick of all this Wallace/Bruce tosh that gets trotted. No relevance to the problems Scotland faces today. Makes for nice movies but that's about it.

And you can cut out all the Gaelic crap as well!!

38

Ronnie W,

01/12/2006 11:50:35

Comerscroft 7) "Scotland living in the past-----as usual."

History IS the past, numpty! That was the whole point of the exercise!

8) "Scotland is so entrapped in living in the past---who cares about 700yr old battles, for goodness sake?"

If it wasn't for the battles of long ago there would be no Scotland now, just as if people were to pay attention to attitudes like you are showing there would be no Scotland in the future.

"......but not much good when most of today's infrastructure is falling down"

Agreed, So what to do about it. We've tried 300 years of Union. Enough time to show conclusively its results, don't you think? Maybe it is time to try something else. It is time to make a little history for future generations.

39

Reiver,

Edinburgh 01/12/2006 11:54:52

#38 Ronnie, why don't we simply do away with the regional aspects to the Union ... that would be progress, no more individual nationalism, we could all simply become British and stand united ... it is certainly a pro-active positive stance ... preferred to the hand wringing whinging of the nationalists ...

40

Paul,

01/12/2006 11:54:57

Our future is not going to be massively shaped by nationalism Ronnie, however important it is to us.

It's big ideas that make the difference.

41

Reiver,

Edinburgh 01/12/2006 12:05:59

# 40 Paul ... very true ...

42

Cattigara,

Dunbar 01/12/2006 12:15:16

The inherent nationalism and the internationalism of Scots stem from an ancient history that academics appear blind to or prefer to silently neglect. The worst job in the Roman army was guard duty on Hadrian’s Wall and Scotland is beholden to the so-called ‘lost’ ancestors that kept it that way… being the Sumertae, Venicones, Carenni, Katoni, Gotodini, Mayatae Chaldoni and Scots… easily recognisable as immigrant Sumerians, Phoenicians, Carians, Catti, Gotts, Magyars, Chaldi-Keltae, and Scyth-Eskitus. If historians don’t recognise a Scottish Empire for the top-ten, is it because they don’t recognise how big - and international - it was and remains… and perhaps this is why its ‘lost’ foundations should be unearthed and rebuilt.

43

Shug,

UK 01/12/2006 12:27:45

So basically #42 we are a bunch of mongrels, ever changing and evolving as new races and cultures blend in. So why the obsession with one tiny part of our history (Bruce/Wallace). All for independence but lets not ignore the fact that there has been 300 years of peace in GB as a result of the Union. Seem to recall it was a bloody mess on all sides of the border.

44

Steve Campbell,

Glasgow 01/12/2006 12:45:42

And we have the nerve to mock the English for constantly reliving their World Cup victory in 1966!

Why should we celebrate a long distant past that is not dissimilar to present day Iraq: a vicious, internally divided society that was Scotland for many hundreds of years. Surely there must be more to defining a country than the ability to temporarily fend off a more powerful neighboring state. Was Scotland of the medieval period or the Scottish people any source of inspiration to anyone outside of these islands? Had we any outstanding cultural or social achievements. Did we bring new technology or methods of agriculture to the fore? We were a backward people living in hovels. In brief there was nothing or virtually nothing to commend us.

If we Scots constantly relive a distant past in which all we achieved was transient victory in a minority of battles in which the enemy made some stupid blunders and cannot see our history for what it was this is to the impoverishment of our future.

45

Calum Crubag,

Alba, gu brath. 01/12/2006 12:50:29

Yeah, Devine is a grim-faced whinge merchant. Studies Irish and Scots history but can only speak English? Surely a knowledge of Gaidhlig/Gaeilge is invaluable to properly understand the histories of Alba and Eire?

Wars of Indpendence were the most important as without them there might have not been a Scotland as so much flowed from our freedom and our own attiudes towards freedom, democracy, education, philosophy and science.

46

Calum Crubag,

Alba, gu brath. 01/12/2006 12:53:28

Shug, 30 years of peace? So Culloden didn't happen? Or the Clearances or Potato Famine? No young men slaughtered in unnessecary wars for the British Empire? No mass poverty in the cities?

And Shug, your name is Gaelic. Funny that.

47

Reiver,

Edinburgh 01/12/2006 12:53:31

I call on the Government (yes, the real one in Westminster) to ask in any referendum about separation the simple question ... "Should we remove all individual State obstacles to the United Kingdom being composed of more than one Nation, to make in effect Britain and the British" ...

I'd bet that this would see howls from the vested interests of the Scots lawyers and such like ... however, with one country and one system we'd save an awful lot in overheads and remove this "am no inglish" rubbish once and for all ...

yes, it is time gentlemen ...

48

Calum Crubag,

Alba, gu brath. 01/12/2006 12:53:56

should be 300 years, obviously...!

49

YabbaDabbaDoo,

Edinburgh 01/12/2006 12:57:08

Steve #44, did you even watch the series? It was about identifying the ten most defining moments in Scottish historty.
The general public and the historians both agreed that the wars of independence were up there as they had a huge effect on the structure and culture of our nation.
You don't have to be a nationalist to agree with them. To say that the wars of independence did not have an impact is just childish, ant-nationalist drivel.
(Are you in a wee huff because of the picture history paints of the Campbells?)

50

Russell M,

01/12/2006 12:59:18

Choosing Scotland's most significant historical moment was not a political or economic exorcize. It was an emotional one, so using the arts of the head, accounting et. al., was not helpful. It was the great heart of the Scots that spoke.

When people around the world are feeling persecuted with no hope of relief, what a stirring message.
"And stood against him,
Proud Edward's Army,
And sent him homeward,
Tae think again."
That is pure emotion. It could also be called strength of heart.

What else gave the Scots the notion that they could withstand a cavalry charge at Balaclava, harness fire and water to drive industry and transportation, understand the human body and economic interaction.

Until the Union the loudest voice in Scottish ears said, "I can understand this, I can solve that, I can fix the other, I can do for myself."

Without hope the human spirit dies. Maybe not this year, or this decade, or this century, but eventually the nanny state will self-destruct.

51

IanW,

01/12/2006 13:00:02

Steve Campbell #44 - I am sure that if you study the history books from this period and before you will find that indeed Scotland played a significant role in Europe.

Many of the scottish educated travel widely in Europe and some were advisors to other courts. On the religous front Scotland was also seen as a place of great learning with people coming to study here.

Also don't forget that Scotland had been a united kingdom long before the warring factions in England ever came together.

I believe that we Scots have a great past and we should be proud of it. We have been part of a union but now wish to have our own independence again, is there anything really wrong with that? Look at the former Russian empire or places like the former Chechzslovakia (probably wrongly spelt). People with a strong cultural identity have on the whole wanted to be free to celebrate in their own way as nations not as part of a mish-mash.

Look at the way the EU is moving, it is a total mess but some politicians want it to take over completly and do away with nation states. I for one would hat ethat to happen.

52

ralph castellano,

baillieston 01/12/2006 13:10:44

thre u all go again calling ursell british........well true scots wouldnt say they where british.......that is why scotland is still ruled by england......cos too many scots would sell theresoulls to the devil.......and u want a bit of history,well listen to this.....r u all forgetting that the english,raped,turturedand murdered ur ansestors......ur ansestors would turn in there grave.......i agree with the lad that said that we have tried in the union...and got nowhere......time is now for an independant scotland...........c'mon scots

53

YabbaDabbaDoo,

Edinburgh 01/12/2006 13:16:18

Joanna 30#, There were ten moments defined, not just the wars of independance. If Scots think this is an important period in the history of their nation then that's fine. Who are you? The thought police? You want us to think differently?

As for your Braveheart remark, it is movie created for light entertainment. If this is where some people pick up a history lesson, then that's fine with me. You cannot deny the tyranny imposed on the Scots by the English back then. You cannot deny William Wallace's battles and subsequent death. You cannot deny Robert the Bruce then went on to win at Bannockburn to gain Scotland's indepenence. But yeah, Wallace probably never slept with a french princess... so therefore the whole film is innacurate....please.

54

Il Penseroso,

Inverurie 01/12/2006 13:18:17

The question set to the panel was to "find Scotland's most significant historical moments". Reiver and his unionist apologists seem only to have one aim and that is to still proscribe any notion of being masters of our own destiny and prescribe the will of a discredited government at Westminster. In looking forward to yet another significant historic event in Scotland, that will be when we shortly achieve Independence and decide our own destinies. The present incumbents in Nos 10 and 11 are only continuing the lying, cheating and duplicity that has been the real "Westminster Way" for centuries. Is Reiver and his friends in the union content to be governed by a system that allows them to be taken to war illegally? Why not volunteer to go to Iraq and Afghanjistan and perhaps spill your blood for Queen and Country? I don't see Blair and Brown rushing to man the barricades. Perhaps Reiver and his pals are heroes after all!

55

Sedov,

Scotland 01/12/2006 13:29:34

Lets hope this programme stimulated many more people to go and look more closely at the real history of Scotland as against the mythical Walter Scott version so beloved of the more jingoistic of the Scots Nats. (Although, I was astonished that robert Burns was not included) . My opinion is that the programme demonstrated that the union with England in the early part of the 1700's, no matter how it came about, helped the Scotland to become one of the great nations of the world as it opened up markets and opportunities that were not afforded to, for example, the Irish at that time. Our traditions and approach that make us great is at all times internationalism and unity with all peoples and despite the injustices of present society we should not be sucked into narrow nationalism which turns in on itself and poisons the mind and the spirit. An independant Scotland in today's world economy is a cruel promise by the SNP that is doomed to failure.

56

Il Penseroso,

Inverurie 01/12/2006 13:32:07

Shug UK @ 43.You obviously got Higher History with that kind of utterance. Back to school, I suggest!

57

Reiver,

Edinburgh 01/12/2006 14:21:47

# 54 Il Penseroso ... there are no apologies on my posts ... and its not just my friends, every one of us is in this 'glorious' Union - hahahaha!!! ... as for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, not sure where that thought came from, I'm simply rebutting the daft nationalist eejits who are already off the thread of the discussion - then you go showing even more ignorance ... !!! ... I never said I vote labour, or that I support them, only that they are Scotsmen striving within our country (Britain) to deliver for all of us - grow up and you might find you can add to the common British good ...

58

Rob me blind,

01/12/2006 14:28:08

#2 with every see you jimmy hat bought on St Andrews day

59

YabbaDabbaDoo,

Edinburgh 01/12/2006 14:30:28

Sedov #55 'we should not be sucked into narrow nationalism which turns in on itself and poisons the mind and the spirit' Eh? Please explain yourself?

You mean like Ireland or the Ukraine? Are these countries now decimated and returning to the dark ages?

60

Il Penseroso,

Inverurie 01/12/2006 14:45:10

Sedov @ 55 Do you consider Norway,Sweden, Denmark, Eire, Malta, Cyprus, Findland etc. narrow nationalists? Scotland, one of the most accepted nations in Europe, was bought off and deposited in a union not of its choosing 300 years ago. Who can say that had it remained a nation state it would not have been as successful as the small independent nations above? Pre the wars of independence Scotland was a successful trading nation and Berwick, then a Scottish harbour town, was indeed the hub of our export/import trade (Prof. James MacKay 1995 in his book William Wallace pages 23-28). European traders had their ships built in Inverness and solid structures were commonplace in Scotland.To be international you first of all need to be a nation. Scotland qualified in that up until the union! Let us regain that nationhood!

61

Sedov,

Scotland 01/12/2006 14:57:37

no probs #59 Extreme examples are - Russia with Stalin, Germany with Hitler, Yugoslavia, Poland. sout Africa before Mandela, etc, But you miss the point totally, - to break up the British State this needs the total unity of all the workers in england, wales and ireland and nationalism serves only to divide this unity and makes it easier for the British state and its allies to impose its own trading rules on the breakaway state. We then begin to build barriers real and imaginary to protect our hown built nation state mostly in the mirror image of the one we have been realeased from and this breeds biterness and resentment. the original aims of independence are then ditched by the middle classes who see opportunities opening up to them because of their in built selfishness and survivcal for existence ( as in Russia) and all of a sudden we are back to square one and the Scottish people are deceived yet again including you. We are not Ireland or Ukraine, we have a totally different history and culture. And in any case these countries have their own problems under so called independence ( ask women in Ireland about the right to abortion or people in Ukraine about access to health) Like it or not the Scottish economy is owned 80% by the outside world who control our economy and as the SNP does not have the programme, will or bottle to challenge this then nationalism is a total myth and you are a total dreamer. ( I am now signing off as its Friday afternoon an in the finest Scottish tradition I am off to the pub to sing the "Internationale") Keep signing Yaba as you are a bit of a character.

62

stanton4,

edin 01/12/2006 15:01:28

Reiver, You like most English completely fail to make a distinction between England and Britain. For example if we were to go to a 'one nation' position as you advocate, why do you automatically assume that the law would English Law ?? Its your sort of attitude that gets Scots backs up, and actually makes them harden their position.

63

Lianachan,

Highlands 01/12/2006 15:07:40

It's very depressing to see what should have been discussion about these top tens descend into nationalists and unionists, of which neither group is in full possession of the facts, sniping uselessly at each other.

64

zigzag,

Tecumseh Ontario Canada 01/12/2006 15:18:34

Damn, here we go again, doing the Full Monty.

65

friendofgordon,

birmingham 01/12/2006 15:27:57

Yawn! What a bunch of pathetic no-hopers. You can only define yourselves in relation to the English. I can understand chosing such a high standard, but it's 700 years ago.
And you don't have the guts to vote the SNP into overall control. 52% of Scots want independance BUT it's 59% of English. No hopers!

66

Reiver,

Edinburgh 01/12/2006 15:37:33

62. stanton4 ... you miss my point ... I don't fail to make a distinction between Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Britain because Britain simply IS ... one nation (under ...). Yes, I am Scottish too ...

I advocated tidying up our one British nation and assume that we would have one hybrid law - Scots lawyers can only automatically register in south Africa as lawyers, unlike English lawyers ... doesn't that tell you something on the breadth of Scots law (and its possible applicability !?).

You should realise that its your sort of defensive, backs up attitude that makes things worse ... best that we all grow up and get on with making Britain the leading light that it once was ...

67

Reiver,

Edinburgh 01/12/2006 15:40:32

#65 friendofgordon ... glad there is one of you mate ...

its the 52% of the ned's that were asked that support independence in Scotland ... I assume its 59% of the chavs that support it in England ... roll on the vote where the educated take the time to have a decisive say.

68

Paul S.,

Mauricetown, NJ USA 01/12/2006 15:50:46

Seen from across the pond, we are thankful for the Declaration of Arbroath far more than for the battles. Seen in a not so parochial view as a Scot would naturally see the Declaration, it and the Magna Carta and the great British encylopedists and essayists are the foundation upon which our own American Declaration of Independence and our Constitution are built.

It is because we have that philosophical background, and the societies upon which our current administrtion tries to impose "freedom" do not, that there is such a disaster in the attempt. Much of the rest of the world, which lacks our Brit-American strong freedom background doesn't "get it" because they come from completely different histories where there are tales and actions which may lead to completely different societal concerns than freedom.

Whether it is arrogance or stupid ignorance on the part of the neo-cons and Bushites, they have never understood that there is zero history of democracy or personal freedom in most of the places where they are trying to impose it. Those places (and this includes Russia) are so steeped in feudalism without the tempering demands which appear in various ways in the cultures of the British Isles, that it would be a wonder if they could within our lifetimes get a grip on how our society operates.

They simply don't get the importance of what they see as social chaos to a democratic society. They are used to strong, might makes might rulers. But look at Magna Carta, the Declaration of Arbroath, and other documents and statements demanding a stop to this kind of strong-arm thinking. No matter that the various populations which inhabit the Isles have often been on conflict, the great documents of freedom spring from them.

And I, as a person descended from both Scotland (Somers, a sept of Clan Lindsay) and England (Sir George Somers, the first settler of Bermuda), am grateful to all.

If there is disagreement in this forum

69

jack astor,

01/12/2006 15:55:26

#65
bang on. its jealously pure and simple

70

andrew robertson,

fife scotland 01/12/2006 15:57:47

There is one thing for sure that they missed out on last nights program Scotland will always be on top off England and there is no way the English can change that.Dont believe me then look at the map

71

Reiver,

Edinburgh 01/12/2006 15:59:29

#68 - nice to see a bit of logic and bigger picture issues commented on ... that's all folks - g'night !!!

72

Media 1,

Cape Town 01/12/2006 16:06:52

WW2 and WW1 more important than any other war in Britian

73

wattie>x 1,

01/12/2006 16:15:32

Having been educated in Ayrshire in the 1920s and when old enough to absorb History, it was totally and purely Scottish, that we were taught.
There was an annual Historical pageant held in Dam Park, Ayr where many off the past and most important periods of our History were played out.
Even today, I remember vividly when a figure was
displayed off Wallace shackled and being driven around the the perimeter displaying the brutal treatment he suffered when taken to London to be executed. This was factual history being brought to life.
And when serving at sea as a Royal Marine during World War Two, it was also a fact; once you donned that uniform it was accepted that you were now serving in the English navy.
Go back into the history of that war and it was very rarely ever to see any off the military services being described as being British.
The Nazis when ranting and raving about their principal enemy before attacking the Soviet Union always referred to them being English and England.
These are facts; if in doubt go to any public library and look back on the records of that war.
In India,Malaya and Burma there were a significant amount of the population during that war waiting to welcome the Japanese as their liberators from England; not from Britain. And many off the Arab nations seen the Germans as their liberators from the English and even today, many still see England as the enemy and not Britain. And even many off the employees of the publicly financed BBC still keep apologising for using the noun England when they mean Britain. And anything such as the football hooligans and terrorist when English,the BBC refer to the them as being British.

74

YabbaDabbaDoo,

Edinburgh 01/12/2006 16:19:51

"wibble wibble wibble" said the englishman...
The Historians and the public identified the outcome of wars of independence as one of the ten historical evetns that contributed to the makeup of the Scotland as we know today.
What's the feckin problem with that?
If you done the same with in England, they'd probably pick the battle of Hastings as a mjor event. This changed the whole way england interacted with other countries and gave her the drive to become arguably the most powerful nation in Europe.
Would you get people who still consider themselves Anglo Saxon having a go and slagging the english for choosing that episode?
Grow up. It's defining moment they've chosen, not a reason for living ya clowns.

75

Duncan,

on tour 01/12/2006 16:35:52

74 Yab.

Have to agree. battles no matter when they occured changed history. Culloden kept the UK monarchy protestant. Cambrai saved us from facism.
Hastings made England French! But they called them Normans. Redit Redit...............

76

Laxdad,

U.S. 01/12/2006 16:39:29

One practical question about independence: How will a tiny Scotland defend itself? It will have to start a military from scratch ... an immensely expensive proposition.

The most honorable course would be to suck it up, build a force comparable to their share of the UK military, and join NATO. From what I read on this forum of the politics of the SNP, that course seems unlikely.

Also honorable would be something like Switzerland's "porcupine neutrality," which enforces universal military service, trains regularly and hard, and spends at least $3 billion per year on the latest and best technology and equipment to make the country too painful for a conquering power to swallow (Israel's defense concept is based on the Swiss model). At least that way, Scotland would be taking responsibility for its own defense. But that model is very expensive (which the wealthy Swiss can afford and the embattled Israelis must afford), An independent Scotland most likely would be unwilling or unable to spend at the required level, especially since they will be building their force from scratch.

Another path for Scotland could be to follow the neutral, pacifist path of Ireland, which spends a paltry 0.6% of its GDP on defense and does not belong to NATO (by way of contrast, Switzerland spends 1.1% of its very large GDP, the UK spends 2.4%, the U.S. spends 3.3%, and Israel spends 9.7%). But is Ireland's path honorable? Let's leave aside that Irish neutrality and de facto aid to the Nazis in WW-II cost countless Allied lives in the North Atlantic; Ireland feels secure in spending virtually none of its booming economy on defense because they expect that if they are ever truly threatened, the U.S. ... and yes, even the hated UK ... will come to their defense. Sounds parasitic to me. The fact is, the Irish economic miracle is sheltered by NATO, to which Ireland makes no contribution.

But an Irish-style defense posture would be a sad end to Scotland's prou

77

Laxdad,

U.S. 01/12/2006 16:40:15

Scottish soldiers have been indispensable to the British military since the Act of Union, which makes inexplicable the current Labor government's decision to extinguish the Scottish regiments (perhaps they anticipate a vote for independence?).

Via the Scottish diaspora, soldiers also have been one of Scotland's most successful and enduring exports. All destinations in the diaspora have similar histories, but even in the polyglot U.S., Scottish and Scots-Irish immigrants and their descendents have provided by far the highest per capita representation of all cultural/ethnic groups in the U.S. military through all of American history from the Revolution up to today. This was true even in times of conscription because Scots and Scots-Irish Americans continued to volunteer disproportionately, and they did not dodge the draft if called. In their culture, military service is a sacred honor and avoiding service is anathema. Justifications for or against a particular war have not seemed to affect their rate of participation ... they seem to view such decisions as "above my pay grade." Scots and Scots-Irish also have had the highest casualty rates. And it's not just numbers, it is quality ... the most decorated American soldier in WW-I, in WW-II, and in Korea and Vietnam was of Scots or Scots-Irish ancestry. Many, if not most, of the Americans' best military leaders since well before the Revolution have been Scots or Scots-Irish (e.g., Robert Rogers, George Rogers Clark, Daniel Morgan, John Paul Jones, Merriwether Lewis & William Clark, Andrew Jackson, Sam Houston, Stonewall Jackson, Nathan Bedford Forrest, Grant, Pershing, Arthur and Douglas MacArthur -- father and son Medal-of-Honor winners, both Theodore Roosevelts [despite his Dutch surname, TR was 3/4 Scots-Irish ... but his cousin, Franklin, was mostly Yankee Puritan] -- father and son Medal-of-Honor winners [TR at San Juan Hill and his son on Omaha Beach], Patton, Chesty Puller, etc. and the lis

78

Laxdad,

U.S. 01/12/2006 16:40:57

Scottish independence would force a significant reduction in the UK military ... and of the UK's contribution to a NATO that already is unable to conduct operations without U.S. participation, even though the non-U.S. members have a larger cumulative GDP and have more troops under arms (Europe is falling behind technologically due to anemic spending ... where the U.S. spends 3.3% of GDP on defense, France spends 2.5%, the UK 2.4%, Germany 1.5%, Italy 1.9%, Canada 1.1%, Spain 1.2% ... the only NATO countries that spend at or above the U.S. rate are Greece at 4.4% and Turkey at 5.1%). In fact, one could argue that all of NATO is parasitic, counting on the U.S. to pay for the technology that keeps them invulnerable from conventional attack.

Such an imbalance in commitment to defense ... an imbalance that is increasing ... is unsustainable (the same is true for South Korea which spends just 2.8% of GDP on defense, despite the DPRK next door, and Japan which spends just 1% of GDP, secure behind their American alliance). Either the U.S. will become fed up with subsidizing all its "allies" (who use the savings to enhance their economic competitiveness against the U.S.) or those who are subsidized will come to so resent their subordinate position in the "partnership" that they decide to strike out on their own, regardless of long term consequences (some feel that France has never forgiven the boorish, uncivilized Americans for compromising their grandeur and dignity by rescuing them twice in the last century, and that is one reason they semi-withdrew from NATO under DeGaulle).

79

ralph castellano,

baillieston 01/12/2006 16:41:31

reiver....its people like u that give the rest of scotland a bad name.....no wonder scotland has not got its own independance.......when people like u that call themselves british......drag the rest down.....if u wanna b british and support the english sovereign.....go back down and cross the border.....and dont come back.....good riddence to u ......ur a fake scot

80

Laxdad,

U.S. 01/12/2006 16:41:43

The neo-Isolationist thrust of today's Democratic Party in the U.S. (a far cry from the party of Wilson, FDR, and JFK) suggests that a the Democratic administration that is likely to take over in 2008 would view a Scottish defection as an appropriate signal to simply dissolve NATO as an anachronism. It could happen anyway, either formally or by gradual asphyxiation. I've heard Democratic politicians suggest that it is time for the U.S. to stop trying to police the world, bring home its forces from overseas (by one count, there are American military missions of one sort or another in 170 countries), and leave all the countries who have prospered behind the U.S. military shield to provide for their own defense. These Democrats further suggest that the U.S. could retain and even strengthen its navy, air force, and nuclear forces (regrettably), but should stand down most of its ground forces to show our good faith commitment to never again put American boots on the ground overseas, ever, for any reason. (As part of our commitment to never involve ourselves militarily in the affairs of nations beyond our borders, we should also probably apologize for every time we have done it in the past ... not just travesties like Iraq [both times ... Desert Storm was al Qaeda's initial excuse to hate us], Afghanistan [both supporting the mujhadeen against the USSR and the current morass], and Vietnam, but also wars of conquest against Spain in 1898 and Mexico in 1846. U.S. entry into WW-I is hard to justify, and even American participation in WW-II is questionable.) The Army and Marine Corps reserves and the National Guard would be increased proportionally to the stand-down of the active force, but Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom have shown that activating and training up the reserve and National Guard to take a lead role in a foreign adventure would take at least a year and cost tens of billions of dollars that the American people would not be willing to spend excep

81

Laxdad,

U.S. 01/12/2006 16:42:12

Eliminating most of the active U.S. Army and Marine Corps would reduce U.S. defense spending as a percentage of GDP to about the EU average, and would free up $1.5 trillion over the next decade, which should be spent strategically to eliminate the need to import any oil. I've recently read credible studies that suggest that the U.S. can achieve total energy independence within fifteen years with a lesser investment, but such generous funding would allow the needed economic and infrastructure transformations to be accomplished with incentives rather than the coercive measures technocrats and far-left politicians love ... but voters come to hate. From a Keynesian standpoint, such a public and private infusion of funds behind new and emerging technologies should drive continued rapid economic growth, whereas the same dollars spent on ground forces go mainly to salaries.

In the meantime, Western Europe might become alarmed by a resurgent, authoritarian Russia and Japan, South Korea, Australia, India, etc. surely will worry about the rising colossus of China. But why should the U.S. care, secure in its energy independence, its military technological supremacy (at least for the time being), and its ultimate nuclear deterrent.

Or so runs the logic of some neo-Isolationist Democrats over here ... and some old school Republicans.

82

Neil,

01/12/2006 16:48:39

I agree that some battles are turning points but by the time of Culloden the Jacobites had already retreated all the way from Derby to Aberdeen & Cambria (assuming WW1 was about fascism) was a fairlyminor battle. I would say the failure of the German offensive of spring 1918 sealed that war if any single battle did.

83

PeterP,

Perthshire 01/12/2006 16:52:22

Do not see what impact the declaration of Abroath had on the outcome of Scottish history, whereas the Treaty of Union was massive. Have to conclude that the public vote, rather like the great Scotsman Online Independance Debate, was led more by Nationalist selective history than critical analysis.

The pity of the public vote is reflected in Prof Devine's observation that 9 of the 10 public choices are pre-1800. Let's stop living in the past. "Braveheart-ism," like selective history, doesn't build better government.

84

cmb,

germany 01/12/2006 16:54:24

Reiver, are you a wind-up merchant or are you really as ignorant as you make out?
Haven't had such a good laugh for a long time!
Good to see that people still care, though.

85

GP,

01/12/2006 17:29:27

700 years ago we had a norman fighting another norman both basically french as were all the other "nobles".
Nothing to do with Scotland merely an excuse for self appointment and improving their lot.

The ordinary people had little if anything to do with these wars as is up until WW1 when ordinary scots did go to war in vast numbers and paid an as yet unrecovered toll.

We should not glorify any past war but look to where we want to be in the future.

86

MR,

Montreal 01/12/2006 17:40:44

I'm afraid I have to agree that Burns was very much a third-rater. I grew up in Ayrshire and got sick of all the cultish, pseudo-masonic deification of him. It's quite clear that Burns has no defenders or interest beyond Scotland, the sentimental Scottish diaspora and assorted Stalinists here and there.

87

Calum Crubag,

Tir nam Beann 01/12/2006 18:18:54

GP, Robert the Bruce was half Gaelic. He was desecended on his mother's side from the ancient Celtic lineage that also gave us MacBeatha and Calum Ceann Mor.

88

Michael G. McKay,

Fredericton, New Brunswick Canada 01/12/2006 18:26:48

I am Michael Garnett McKay, and I am extremely Proud of my Direct Decent from Scotish Royalty. I loved Sir. Wiolliam Wallace and Robert the Bruce. they fought for the rights of all Scotsman to live as free men and I salute them and their memory.

Long live Scotland and long may she be free.

Manu Forti
Bi Tren

89

Andrew Allan,

01/12/2006 18:39:54

Reiver#36 read this 60% of the English want to get rid of use, and call us ingrates, some support.

90

Steve here,

here 01/12/2006 19:47:07

John Logie Baird

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blbaird.htm

He made the telly poll possible...and got no votes?

91

Sambo,

The deep south 01/12/2006 20:24:59

#68 Paul S.
Right on the mark.

92

Wee Hev,

Doon Unner 01/12/2006 20:40:37

Lena Zavaroni winning Opportunity Knocks was surely a landmark in Scottish history? Why no mention?

93

Il Penseroso,

Inveruie 01/12/2006 21:10:01

Is'nt wonderful there has been so much discussion on the future of Scotland! We have had the " fors" and the "not in your life" postings. This Edinburgh lad "Reiver" is so typical of the Edinburgh Elite who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. He has just opted out for the good life in Edinburgh's society to go for an over priced dram. What does he care about the plebs in my country who cannot afford to turn on their heating but have central heating they cannot afford! New Labour logic!! Get with it! Let us all contribute to a better Scotland and catch up with the real world. We can do it!!!

94

Joanna,

Cambs 01/12/2006 21:14:44

Yabba dabba doo doo

Away and join the Mel Gibson fan club........ oh too late I guess you are already a fully paid up member!!

95

YabbaDabbaDoo,

Edinburgh 01/12/2006 21:27:12

Joanna - I'm not really that keen on Mel Gibson. He was ok in the early days with Mad Max I suppose. All I'm saying is that Braveheart did actually give some people a lesson in history. Anyway, this is not what the discussion is all about. A few of you think we cling onto the wars of independence as a way of life. I don't hear anyof your like slagging us off for thinking our contribution to medicine or our engineering breakthroughs were important. Again, what is it you would prefer us to think?

96

dawkins' goat,

cork 01/12/2006 21:28:47

I'm afraid I am forced to agree with the view that Burns was a third-rater. I grew up in Ayrshire and had to put up with the cult of Rabbie - all that pseudo-masonic deification. Repulsive. It was only when you studied the great literary, figures, including Scottish ones, that you realised just how unimportant he is.

There is not much real interest in RB beyond Scotland, beyond the sentimental Scottish diaspora and among assorted leftover Stalinists here and there. Sad, but true.

97

MacDonald,

Canada 01/12/2006 21:33:42

Laxdad USA

Verbal diarrhea!!!!! Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah.

America; its all about military and wars and bombs and killing and the world would be a better place with more countries like Ireland and Scotland and less of those like Britain and the USA.

98

dawkins' goat,

cork 01/12/2006 21:40:57

#99 Nice one!

99

Wee Hev,

Doon Unner 01/12/2006 22:01:18

99 dinnae talk s****! Have you been on the pink tablets?

No England/Britain, no Canada! Numpty....Nae wunner your ancestors went there. Was there a glut of idiots in their native village?

100

Wee Hev,

Doon Unner 01/12/2006 22:04:15

100 Stay in Cork and keep your stupid opinions with you. I believe it has now been geographically proven to be the official a***h*** of nowhere.

You live in a country that gained independence through cowardice and terrorism. Don't even comment on Scotland, you have no right to.

101

Wee Hev,

Doon Unner 01/12/2006 22:04:59

Now will no-one stand up and cheer for oor wee Lena?

102

JG,

Fife 01/12/2006 22:18:40

Yabba Dadda Doo
"Braveheart" was not a lesson in history - other than the fact that a long time ago there was man called William Wallace who fought the English and was ultimately killed for "treason".

Reiver, how dare you disagree with the nationalsists! That's it!!! You have been stripped of your Scottishness. You'll have to pick another nationality - or declare yourself a republic.

103

MacDonald,

Canada 01/12/2006 22:26:50

When I mentioned the world would be better off without the USA and Britian I neglected to mention that back water almost a country KangaroooooLand.

104

GP,

01/12/2006 23:08:57

I was not one second decrying our grandparents or ancestors so don't for one minute think it.
Unlike most of the posters here I have actually spent some time in flanders et al.
I also believe that all scots children should visit the WW1 war graves to get some idea of the tragic loss of so many young men. It should be part of every childs education in my view.
If you are not moved then you have no sense of right and wrong. Scotland because of it's disproportionate numbers willing to sacrifice themselves for this GREAT BRITAIN that they thought they were equal pertners in, has NEVER recovered form that great loss.
When you think of the lost talent and the possibilities lost through the loss of those young men with all their life ahead of them it explains why we are struggling today.

No I was not criticising bruce or any war just for the sake of it. I was merely highlighting that Bruce was attracted by more direct effects on him and not on the common man. At that time all common people would be no better than slaves.

In fact miners in scotland were being treated as bad as slaves after slavery was abolished for the rest of the world.

105

Robert E,

Edinburgh 01/12/2006 23:50:35

The difference between Scottish unionism and Scottish nationalism is the difference between adolescence and adulthood. I urge any unionist to embark on a journey of de-anglicisation. I guarantee it will bring psychological benefits. Here's a hint to get you started - English values aren't absolute.

106

Laxdad,

U.S. 01/12/2006 23:50:47

MacDonald, I take it you agree with the neo-Isolationists in the U.S. who say the U.S. should withdraw from the world and return to our role before WW-II. In 1939, the U.S. had the largest economy but only 17th largest Army in the world. It's hard to cast them as war mongers then. But by entering WW-II they underwent a fundamental reordering of society and became a "Great Power," with the dolorous results we still see today.

American Populist historians have long argued that the U.S. should have stayed home in 1917 and 1941. Neither war was any of our business. If we had, there would be no argument here. There would be no freedom of the press in the British Isles and certainly no forums for free expression such as this. Either the Nazis would have won and overrun the place or the Soviets would have won without U.S. help, as they claimed they would have. In either case, you'd have masters far worse than the English.

107

MacDonald,

Canada 02/12/2006 00:09:29

Laxdad U.S. Yes I absolutely agree with your neo-Isolationists that America should close their 720 military bases around the world including the 14 permanent ones in Irag and go home. It seems to me you are making a mess out of things. Look at the wonderful job you did in Viet Nam. Having the most bombs does not make you a great nation. Next year the world will welcome the brand new and great country of Scotland and the last thing she needs is a military.

108

GP,

02/12/2006 00:12:38

107#
I think if you actually research you will find that miners were being treated worse than slaves long after 1800.
It is one thing passing a law it's another thing anyone taking notice.
Who exactly prosecuted mine owners?

109

RobertBurnsnightman,

Abroath, UK 02/12/2006 01:30:03

FREE SCOTLAND !!!!11!

(When purchased with any country of greater or equal value)

110

Jiimpoo,

Tallinn 02/12/2006 01:55:04

this is my favourite William Wallace. Highly underrated
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wallace_%28Scottish_...

111

Albanach,

Ontario 02/12/2006 02:17:14

Our history is very important as is our identity. After 30yrs in Canada listening to the N. American media ( assisted by English commentators) talk of the Queen of England, Prime Minister Blair of England and how England fought and resisted in WW1 and WW2, to mention but a few, we have to check regularly to ensure Scotland still exists as a nation. It is good to hear that independent thought is still strong. I only hope that Scotland will not be sold out, as in 1707, by the current leadership.
Good luck.

112

Laxdad,

U.S. 02/12/2006 04:20:36

MacDonald wrote, "Next year the world will welcome the brand new and great country of Scotland and the last thing she needs is a military."

Fine with me, but don't ask anyone else to defend you if you are attacked.

113

dawkins' goat,

cork 02/12/2006 10:23:36

#102

I'm proud and relieved to call my myself a "lapsed Scot" and a "recovering Presbyterian".

114

Bram Seer,

All of Scotland 02/12/2006 11:31:52

Yes,the contribution made by Scotia's Bairns in UK military history has been incredibly significant . This is very well recorded, however,it only took the stroke of a pen by Whitehall and the plans of an English General, two years ago to destroy the entire 300 year history of the Scottish regiments. That was Scotland's payment for this dedication to the Union,it always was the Scottish regiments that were to the fore in most battles,even the rearguard for Dunkirk were Scots. But when it comes to cuts, again it is the Scottish regiments that bore the brunt.

Jackson, I hope the souls of the Scot's war dead killed in UK battles, haunt you through eternity......

115

MacDonald,

Canada 02/12/2006 13:55:25

Laxdad USA just doesn't get it!! Scotland will not be attacked because she has not bombed anyone. If she were attacked a firey cross would be sent round and the great clans would come down from the hills with their claymores and broad swords. The Scots are the best fighting men in the world.

116

dawkins' goat,

cork 02/12/2006 14:41:16

Scotland should ditch all that crappy Burns culture and start celebrating their living and recently dead poets instead. Mackay Brown, Edwin Muir, John Burnside - all much much better, and genuinely internationally respected compared to the ploughboy tosser.

117

Neil,

9% Growth Party 02/12/2006 14:46:11

The fact that the Scots regiments were keeping up the numbers by recruiting Fijians may have had something to do with it.

When the population of you catchment area is dropping you can't keep up the same number of regiments.

118

Eve,

02/12/2006 15:40:54

#30. Joanna, Cambs Your "I'm amazed that a 700 year old battle came out top of this poll.......... even if it was the defeat of the Auld Enemy." You must be in the minority, in this one.

What would have been a suprise if Delarention of Abroth (No.2)had not been in the veiwers top 10 and Rabbie Bruns which niver were in the proffesals.

"I bet a lot of those who voted relied on the film Braveheart for their 'knowledge' of 14th century Scotland." I object to such comments like this when they come up. The want and need for Scottish Independeence has nothing to do with Braveheart and nor would be the people of Scotland voteing for the these wars of independence in a BBC programme.

Personaly, I would have voted in a similar way if I had found the time and the right webpage before the voting closed. I've only seen Braveheart once and I was 15 at the time and relised it was a holywood story mixed up with a historical event. Come on most of us reliase that Braveheart was mostly filmed in Ireland and was hardly the most acurate historical film ever viewed.

119

Eve,

02/12/2006 15:53:05

76. Laxdad: What a negtive person you are!!

Why bother writting 3 eassys on negtivety towards a country you don't even live in?

We've got pelty of people here in Scotland and in our nebours England, who like to spread this type of negtivity and seem to forget whats best for the people as a whole, these people are calles Unionists and all they care about is perseving an out of date, backwards union which should have never existed in the 1st place.


Scotland shall be independence one day (it's coming soon, I'm sure it is) and Scotland is hardly seen as a frent by anyone. so whose gonney atack us the (the English, Amercains??) ?

120

Joanna,

Cambs 02/12/2006 20:25:52

Eve @ 122

It comes as no surprise to me, whatsoever, that you would have voted for the 700 year old battle.... congratulations for confirming what I already knew.

121

Eve,

Scotland 02/12/2006 21:56:01

#124. Joanna: Think you've miss read my comment.

I said it had nothing to do with the Flim Braveheart, which is what you said it did. (I said it was a mixed up story which most was flimed in Ireland not Scotland hardly relistic.)

I said I'd only seen that flim once round about when it frist came out . Ages ago (Almost a decade), can't rember exscatly what happen in it but I belived in Scottish independence before I saw it and was also aware of the battle of striling bridge and Banock Burn before, I saw it, insadently Bravehearts only about the 1st one not the 2nd.

I realy don't see how I've proved your point considering I've belived in Scottish independence since I was in Primary School. (I use to go to SNP fund rasiers about once a month when I was a child)

P.S. I would have voted for Home Rule, as well, as this is something that has infulence my life possible more than the wars of Indpendence alow there still important.

122

,

03/12/2006 20:45:49
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 207351, Article id was mapped to record!
123

Wee Hev,

Doon Unner 03/12/2006 20:47:52

Now will no-one acknowledge Lena's massive contribution to Scotland's fame?

124

MacDonald,

Canada 04/12/2006 02:01:46

Wee Hev, Doon Unner

Who the hell is Lena???

125

Wee Hev,

Doon Unner 04/12/2006 13:40:27

Lena charmed the nation as a perky nine-year-old when she appeared on popular talent show "Opportunity Knocks", hosted by grinning Canadian Hughie Green.

She wore Shirley Temple style frocks and ringlets,and sang "Ma, He's Makin' Eyes At Me" in a somewhat precocious fashion. I believe the talented little lass also tap-danced.

This was in the days before cocaine became popular among the lower orders, when pubs shut early. So you can imagine how thrilled all of Scotland was when "Oor Wee Lena" won.

Sadly, Lena became victim to Anorexia Nervosa, and died young. She was, to some extent, an early "Kylie." But didn't have such a nice arse....

126

Laxdad,

USA 05/12/2006 21:01:49

Eve #123 wrote, "Why bother writting 3 eassys on negtivety towards a country you don't even live in?"

The "3 eassys" were really one essay that had to be cut into three parts due to the number of words.

I don't see how what I wrote was negative. I'm proud of my Scottish and Scots-Irish ancestors, even though they had all left Scotland before 1770. I believe that an independent Scotland will have responsibilities outside its own borders ... just like all countries. Basically, I hope that when/if Scotland becomes independent they will either:

1. Be part of NATO (or a successor EU military without the US if the neo-Isolationists here win out) and make up for the necessary reduction in the UK contribution (I guess it would be just plain /England again with Scotland gone ... no more Great Britain) ... or

2. Adopt an honorable, neutral and independent defense policy that would not require neighbors to defend them. I offered the Swiss/Israeli "porcupine" model ... which should fit with MacDonald's #119 strategy of "a firey cross ... sent round and the great clans would come down from the hills with their claymores and broad swords. The Scots are the best fighting men in the world." I fully agree with his last statement. I would hope, though, that an independent Scotland would not send the great clans into battle with 14th century weapons, as MacDonald suggests.

Why any defense at all, you say? While no immediate national threat to Scotland is evident now, the world is not a safe place, especially if you look ahead 30 or 50 years instead of 5 to 10. Scotland would be a strategically decisive acquisition for a resurgent Russian Bear, for example. Who today can anticipate what country or NGO might want to dominate the North Atlantic approaches to Northern Europe? Some on this thread seem to think it might be the U.S. ... can we be sure that one of Bush's daughters won't be president in 2040? My point wa

127

Bob Corfield,

Wollongong, Australia 06/12/2006 01:41:07

Love Scottish history and thoroughly enjoyed all the diverse points of view as expressed above. Some good people have a few myths confused with fact but even so interesting stuff from an outsider's perspective.

BTW isn't Prof Ted Cowan a legend? Must manage to meet him on my next visit and find out.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.