why was scotland able to resist the english so much better

>>2850972
Is that why Ireland is an independent nation while Scotland is not?

>>2850988
Scots don't give a shit about autonomy. No one in the British Isles do except potato niggers.

>>2850972
They really didn't. They arguably got worse treatment in the form of the highland clearances, and today the average scot is almost indistinguishable from an average brit.

>>2850972
Maybe because Scotland has like a shitton of mountains to conduct guerrilla warfare in whilst Ireland is green hills and pastures?

>>2850972
Scotland was a largely unified political entity and had been for quite some time, even the Picts were somewhat well established.

Ireland had never been a unified entity until the 1900s.

>>2850972
Because they were a consolidated Kingdom, as opposed to a collection of minor chiefdoms often antagonistic towards each other. Much the same reason as Wales too.

It's funny because Acts of Union were passed under Scottish ruling family

>>2851011
>>2851017

Mostly these two, but the Vikings also destabilized Ireland longer than Scotland.

However, one could argue that continued Viking raids were both a cause and an effect of Irish disunity.

Scotland integrated itself with England to create a British state. Many Scots feared England would eventually take the whole of the British Isles by force.

The Scots sold out, the Irish kept fighting for independence and eventually got it. Scotland is a sorry excuse for a "nation", they literally underachie at everything.

>>2850988
You mean an Ireland which is divided in two?

File: a6b57f20a1c329e89b2aa68f60b1b8f2.jpg (55KB, 503x700px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 503x700px

Scotland was a centralised state, Ireland wasn't.

But framing it as "Scotland resisting the English better than the Irish" is a little disingenuous. After all, Ireland is an independent state while Scotland isn't. Ireland had to be toped into the Union against its will while Scotland joined willingly. Even going back in time, Ireland had a greater sense of national cohesion than Scotland did. The Irish were politically divided but regarded themselves as being one people, while Scotland was pretty much socially tribal.

>>2851395
The Scots were disunited in large part because the Irish had invaded and colonised West Scotland and established a culture radically different to that of the lowlands. In many ways the Scots *weren't* one people.

File: 02b.jpg (145KB, 1111x597px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1111x597px

>>2850972
>45%

>>2850972
Because France cared about Scotland as it would prevent British Supremacy and was part of the plan to remove the duchy of Normandy and Gascony from them. Scotland had some wealth in it, but the naturally jagged terrain helped dissidents hide.
Whilst Ireland never generated a good revenue and people only cared about it for geo-politics long after the British had conquered it.
The Scots had a treaty with the French for a hundred years or so where if one was at war with England they both must be, Scottish independence relies wholly on French involvement and later German, nothing more nothing less
Pope also declares Scotland to be free from English yoke at one point but this is when they are a vassal of France and was just a corrupt Frenchman

Man the whole Britain and Ireland thing is confusing, it like English, lowland Scots and Norn iron Protestants are the same race, yet in both Ireland and Scotland there is this rivalry between Irish catholics and English Protestants. Yet England just sits back and chills. And Wales, Wales has sheep.

>>2851020
They weren't that Scottish. James VI/I never returned once he left for England, James II never set foot in Scotland till he was in his 20s, and didn't really like the place.

Ironically, it Queen Victoria, a German, liked the place better.

>>2851436
Well actually the most popular theory today says that the Gaels were actually native Scots who adopted Irish culture through diffusion and very close contact over a long period of time.

>>2850996
Then why did the UK vote for Brexit?

>>2853201
James VI during his Scottish reign was actually a bit of a patriot. He subsidised art, literature etc. that contributed to the "Scottish national character" and even wrote a book about how Scots was a much better language for writing poetry in than English.

Of course once he ascends to the English throne that all stops, which is a little sad.

>>2853793
Why did it stop? What caused him to go "wtf I love England now"?

File: 33m1j7m.jpg (122KB, 741x600px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 741x600px

If Robert the Bruce hadn't won the Battle of Banockburn Scotland wouldn't be the nation it is today. And to be quite honest the battle was 2/3 strategy 1/3 luck. English cavalry was much more numerous because half the Scottish aristocracy were fucking traitors.

Shitty geography and political unity following Banockburn is the short answer. The former was pretty much the reason the Romans gave up. (also the lack of taxable cities made it relatively pointless in terms of the effort to reward ratio)

>>2853815
Money

>>2853815
As King of Scotland he was actually draining the treasury with his cultural pursuits. As king of England, he had far more cash to play with.

File: North_Berwick_witches.jpg (119KB, 747x599px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 747x599px

>>2854092
Yep, he was writing mad books like "The Daemonology" and obsessed about magic and witch craft etc.

Not sure why I find it so funny but he used to write pamphlets entitled "Newes from Scotland" summarising the important events of the year and send them out to other royal courts across Europe. They were always filled with mad pictures of witch trial and supposedly captured beasts.

He wrote another pamphlet called "A counter-blaste to tobacco" in which he outlined the reasons smoking was bad and argued for a 300+% tax on it.

Honestly the guy was a maniac. (if sympathetically so)

>>2851004

This is as God intended.

>>2850972
Terrain. Lowlanders were more sympathetic and less "muh English are bastards" than their Highlander counterparts.

>>2854317
>whatcha thinkin bout?
>idk witchcraft i guess

>>2851026
why would the viking raids be a disuniting factor for the Irish when it directly lead to the English uniting?

File: 1410377116016.jpg (35KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 480x480px

>>2850988
>26 counties

>>2851004
But they highland clearances were carried out by lowlanders.

>>2851237
You can tell this is a yank

>>2851395
>After all, Ireland is an independent state while Scotland isn't.
This is also disingenuous, using the same argument you can say that Ireland is an independent state whilst England isn't.

>>2851004
The Clearances were carried out by the Scots themselves. The Act of Proscription was a Union hit job that wrecked Highland culture.

>>2855215
Clan chiefs and large landowners (probably lowlanders and some English) iirc

>>2853734
I believe he is referring to autonomy at a devolved level to regional identities (Scottish parliament for example). Brexit was about Sovereignty which is a deeply important concept in British political/legal culture.

>>2855228
Very good point

>>2851395
This

Scotland at least had some kings who actually excised control over most if not all of Scotland (though the Hebrides, Orkneys, and Shetlands would resist this).

A lot of this boils down to Alba absorbing the Kingdom of Strathclyde + King Edgar ceding Lothian to the Scots + Anglo-Saxon refugees fleeing from the Normans + and finally King David bringing over Norman lords and institutions; thus welding together these lands and peoples into the nucleus of a kingdom on par with the continent.