'England has always been able to defeat '

really always? why did the English have to keep fighting over 100s of years if the Scots were such walkovers and 1707 marks a union , a marriage of equals even though 1 was smaller and poorer than the other
Who was the monarch of England in 1706, the year before union? Answer. Anne Stuart
Father James, Grandad Chas 1, Gt Grandad James and so her Gt Gt Grandma was MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS

I keep being told here i'm a Scot , i'm mixed Mum a MacTavish, so i'm on both sides



Battle of Ancrum Moor - 1545
During the "Rough Wooing" as King Henry VIII of England tried to persuade Mary Queen of Scots to marry his son, an English force marched into the Scottish Borders, destroying Melrose Abbey. The invaders were defeated at Ancrum Moor by a force only half their size consisting of Douglases, Leslies, Lindsays and Scotts.

Battle of Bannockburn - 1314
An English army, led by Edward II, marching to relieve Stirling Castle, were met by King Robert the Bruce at Bannock Burn, near Stirling. The over-confident English army was soundly defeated, losing 3/4,000 men, Scottish casualties were light. King Edward II escaped back to England.

Battle of Carham - 1018
An army from Northumberland, seeking to recover Lothian which had been captured by King Malcolm II of Scotland, clashed with Malcolm at Carham on the river Tweed. The Scots were victorious and henceforth the river Tweed became accepted as the border between Scotland and England.

Battle of Dunbar - 1650
Oliver Cromwell advanced into Scotland, initially with 16,000 men, supported by ships along the east coast, in pursuit of King Charles I. The Scots army, led by David Leslie, thwarted his attempts to take the port of Leith and Cromwell retired to Dunbar.


Battle of Dunnichen - 685
It has been argued that if the King Bruide of the Picts had not defeated an invasion by Ecgfrith, King of Northumbria on May 20, 685, Scotland as a separate nation would not have come into being. The Northumbrians had already advanced as far as Lothian, south of the river Forth and defeated the Gododdin and had subjugated the southern lands of the Picts. The Picts had suffered a serious defeat on the plain of "Manau" (near Grangemouth) and 12 years later a huge force of Northumbrians advanced into the land of the Picts. But using local knowledge of the area around Dunnichen (known as Nechtansmere to the later southern historians), the Picts won an overwhelming victory, bringing to an end the northern advance of the Northumbrians.



Battle Of Falkirk - 1746
The retreating Jacobite army of Prince Charles Edward Stewart, pursued by the Duke of Cumberland, marched from Glasgow on 3 January 1746 towards Stirling. Units of the two armies clashed, the MacDonald regiments in particular gave a good account of themselves and the Jacobites were victorious. Nevertheless, they headed north again - to the final battle at Culloden three months later.

Battle of Otterburn - 1388
A successful foray by James, second earl Douglas, into northern England, swept as far as Durham and then fell back destroying and pillaging as it went. Henry Percy, better known as "Hotspur" assembled an army and set off in pursuit. Douglas was leading a force of around 3,000 men and Hotspur had twice that number. The two forces met south of Otterburn late in the evening of 19 August. The battle continued into the night - the darkness meant that the English bowmen were ineffective. By morning, the wounded Hotspur had been captured and 1,000 English had been killed. However, Douglas himself, leading a charge into the enemy, was fatally wounded.



Battle of Prestonpans - 1745
After raising his standard at Glenfinnan on August 19, Prince Charles Edward Stewart marched south to Edinburgh, reaching there by September 14. The Hanoverian army under Sir John Cope gathered near the hamlet of Prestonpans to the east of the city. A local force of Jacobite sympathisers surprised the Government forces by picking their way across a marsh during the night and attacking at dawn. They soon put the redcoats to flight. Casualties on both side were relatively light but 1600 government soldiers and their supplies were captured.



Battle of Sherrifmuir - 1715
The Earl of Mar, leading the Jacobite forces in support of James Francis Edward Stewart (the "Old Pretender"), had taken control of most of Scotland north of Perth. The government forces led by the Duke of Argyll advanced from the south and the two armies met on the hills of Sherrifmuir, east of Dunblane in November 1715. The battle was inconclusive but afterwards the Jacobites withdrew. The Old Pretender arrived in Scotland (much later than expected) in December 1715 but stayed only six weeks before being persuaded to return to France.



Battle of Stirling Bridge - 1297
William Wallace fought a guerrilla war for a number of years against the English who were effectively in occupation with the English king's puppet, John Balliol on the throne. The Earl of Surrey led an punitive force to confront Wallace and they met at Stirling Bridge. The overconfident English army advanced across a narrow bridge across the Forth. At the right moment, Wallace ordered the attack and the English foot soldiers were swept into the river.

I suspect England will trade keeping Faslane against not blocking Scotland accession to the EU?

Other alternatives are Devonport (over crowded) and Milford Haven (will Dewi agree?).

So either they dismantle UK's nuclear forces, or base them subs in Brest...

Nappy wrote:

why did the English have to keep fighting over 100s of years if the Scots were such walkovers

Careful now, you're delivering ammunition to the French: why did the English have to keep fighting over 100s of years if the French were such walkovers?

Battle of Ancrum Moor - 1545 - against which must be set the defeats of Solway Moss and Pinkie.

Battle of Bannockburn - 1314 - shit happens when the man in charge is an incompetent homo!

Battle of Carham - 1018 - against which must be set the defeats of Alnwick in 1093 (Scotch king + heir both killed) and Northallerton (battle of the Standard).

Battle of Dunbar - 1650 - a crushing victory for Cromwell; Worcester was another crushing Scotch defeat.

Battle of Dunnichen - 685 A.D.? That's scraping the barrel! England wasn't a united kingdom back then. Be serious.

Battles of of Prestonpans + Falkirk - 1746 - against which must be set the crushing defeat of Culloden.

Battle of Otterburn - 1388 - against which must be set the defeats of Halidon Hill, Neville's Cross (Scotch king captured) and Homildon Hill.

Battle of Sherrifmuir - 1715 - a draw, rebellion fizzled out. So what?

Battle of Stirling Bridge - 1297 against which must be set the defeat of Falkirk (and we know what happened to Wallace, don't we?).

How surprising you forgot to mention Flodden (king and most of the "nobles" killed)!

I've got another Scotch victory for you though: Newburn Ford (1640).

All in all, an objective list doesn't look good at all for the Scotch. Many more defeats, and many of these defeats were far, far worse than any of the (usually minor) setbacks suffered by the English.

The proof of English superiority is of course that the Scotch, Welsch, Irish etc. all speak English - but virtually no English people can speak any Celtic language - they're are practically dead languages of no practical use. And there's a good reason why they became that way!

Mournblade wrote:

LTKilling wrote:



yes SHE WANTS MY SPANISH MEAT,

she is 21 years old, my meat will fill her good

SPANIARD ARYAN

I see she's met you, already.

NO that is your dick faggot asshole

my dick is 6.3 inches, I give many orgasms to girls, they tell me

HAHAHAAH

Nappy wrote:

why did the English have to keep fighting over 100s of years if the Scots were such walkovers



No. The Scots were never walkovers. They were fierce fighters. They still are come to think of it. But they never had a chance against the English. We outnumbered them and were technologically superior to them. They never had a real chance. They could win battles but never win a war.


In fact it was probably the courage of the Scots that gave them such good terms within the Union. We had a Union that benefited both sides. That is no longer the case. Scottish independence is now inevitable.

Unless the Scots control their own immigration and exchequer there is no point

They can make the offer to stay in the Union whilst controlling their own life

Lord_Haw_Haw wrote:

Unless the Scots control their own immigration and exchequer there is no point

They can make the offer to stay in the Union whilst controlling their own life

But they don't want such control; which makes me think that the SNP is using independence as a ploy to get more of the English taxpayers money.

Scotland the brave!

mikgof wrote:

Lord_Haw_Haw wrote:

Unless the Scots control their own immigration and exchequer there is no point

They can make the offer to stay in the Union whilst controlling their own life

But they don't want such control; which makes me think that the SNP is using independence as a ploy to get more of the English taxpayers money.

the true nationalists do. There are some apprehensive about it

They still need to control banking and they could claim some North Sea oil as being in their sovereign waters

iciparis wrote:

BrasherBoot wrote:

I want Scotch independence.

It means England will have no more fuckwit leftie Labour governments. Hurrah!

Makes sense when looked at from that angle, as neither would the Scots, and I presume the Northern Irish and the Welsh for that matter. Quids in all round, I'd say.

Well it might be a mild increase in lib dem tossers on a per capita basis.

Sounds good to me tho to never have the scummy labour sociopaths in