Why did Scotland and England unite (Animated History Documentary)
video description
Date: 2024-10-08
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 20
A190xx
The comments are always interesting for the British and I apologise for using this term to refer to people from across all the nations of the British Isles, but I cannot think of a better one.
Until post WW2, 99% of Brits were of the same bloodlines for 2-3, 000 thousand years. They had moved (especially following invasions, married and borne children across the Isles throughout that time and their so bloodlines are near indistinguishable.
Hence, when historians talk of X did not like Y, they do not mean the wider British people, but the 1% who ruled the islands, so the prevailing kings, lords, barons, bishops, etc of which most could trace over half of their bloodline to mainland European families. These disputes tended to be about power, but were presented often as religion, even though Catholics and Protestants worship the same god just is slightly different ways.
Decisions on wars and land disputes were taken by this 1%, which subsided with greater democracy, so one can only really blame the English, Scots, Welsh or Irish from when there was at least suffrage for most of the population or at least most men - mid-1800 to early 1900s.
There was little to no appetite for independence in Ireland (the best result was 18% of the vote prior to 1916) until a movement was led by its middle classes and on religious lines told everyone they would be better off out of the UK. These religious grounds are significantly diluted and nearing irrelevance today with only 69. 1% of those in the Republic now claiming to be Catholic and the next highest demographic is no religion at 14. 8%.
And there was very little discord between the 4 parts of the UK until Tony Blair decided to devolve powers to win over the minority nationalist supporters, as part of his greater campaign to elicit the minority interests across the UK to beat the Conservatives. Instead of creating greater unity, this single act by Labour has created more nationalism between the 4 countries and sees such parties exploting this to win more power. Again, a drive from the middle classes to help themselves not their people.
Notwithstanding, 95% of the British today are from the same families and have shared values, so we should not let political activists exploit us for their goals.
reply
The comments are always interesting for the British and I apologise for using this term to refer to people from across all the nations of the British Isles, but I cannot think of a better one.
Until post WW2, 99% of Brits were of the same bloodlines for 2-3, 000 thousand years. They had moved (especially following invasions, married and borne children across the Isles throughout that time and their so bloodlines are near indistinguishable.
Hence, when historians talk of X did not like Y, they do not mean the wider British people, but the 1% who ruled the islands, so the prevailing kings, lords, barons, bishops, etc of which most could trace over half of their bloodline to mainland European families. These disputes tended to be about power, but were presented often as religion, even though Catholics and Protestants worship the same god just is slightly different ways.
Decisions on wars and land disputes were taken by this 1%, which subsided with greater democracy, so one can only really blame the English, Scots, Welsh or Irish from when there was at least suffrage for most of the population or at least most men - mid-1800 to early 1900s.
There was little to no appetite for independence in Ireland (the best result was 18% of the vote prior to 1916) until a movement was led by its middle classes and on religious lines told everyone they would be better off out of the UK. These religious grounds are significantly diluted and nearing irrelevance today with only 69. 1% of those in the Republic now claiming to be Catholic and the next highest demographic is no religion at 14. 8%.
And there was very little discord between the 4 parts of the UK until Tony Blair decided to devolve powers to win over the minority nationalist supporters, as part of his greater campaign to elicit the minority interests across the UK to beat the Conservatives. Instead of creating greater unity, this single act by Labour has created more nationalism between the 4 countries and sees such parties exploting this to win more power. Again, a drive from the middle classes to help themselves not their people.
Notwithstanding, 95% of the British today are from the same families and have shared values, so we should not let political activists exploit us for their goals.
reply
MidlifeCrisisJoe
I always wonder how influential the Tulipmania financial bubble was regarding the economic downturn of Scotland. Because one of Scotland's main trading partners was the Netherlands, and aside from the English interfering with this trade (which they definitely did do) the Netherlands infamously went through a bust economy in the 1630s for at least a brief period due to a Tulip-related market speculation bubble.
While most people today think the longer term negative effects of this bubble were pretty minimal for the Dutch, in terms of their relations to Scotland and Scotland's strong trading ties to them (and in many ways, dependence on these ties for their own economic prosperity) this bubble crash must've impacted the Scottish economy negatively as well. Perhaps once that bubble burst, this is one factor that led to Scotland taking on the Darien plan, which itself ended up a bust and therefore led to Scotland essentially wanting to unify in order to erase their debts later on in the century.
reply
I always wonder how influential the Tulipmania financial bubble was regarding the economic downturn of Scotland. Because one of Scotland's main trading partners was the Netherlands, and aside from the English interfering with this trade (which they definitely did do) the Netherlands infamously went through a bust economy in the 1630s for at least a brief period due to a Tulip-related market speculation bubble.
While most people today think the longer term negative effects of this bubble were pretty minimal for the Dutch, in terms of their relations to Scotland and Scotland's strong trading ties to them (and in many ways, dependence on these ties for their own economic prosperity) this bubble crash must've impacted the Scottish economy negatively as well. Perhaps once that bubble burst, this is one factor that led to Scotland taking on the Darien plan, which itself ended up a bust and therefore led to Scotland essentially wanting to unify in order to erase their debts later on in the century.
reply
Yabuturtle
Some think that since they united, it has only been English rulers since then and no other form of representation. But there have been Scottish, Welsh and even Irish prime ministers. Although David Lloyd George was born in England, he was Welsh and spoke Welsh as a first language.
Some think that because you are united, one has no freedom. It isn't inherently bad for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to be with England and part of the UK. It is only bad if other sides are treated unfairly. If they are treated equally, the. It's better overall to be united. There won't be too many reasons to be separate and that is usually why countries break up is because other sides are treated unfairly, but if you are you can stay united. True you can make up your own rules when you are broken up, and also aren't obligated to be brought into conflicts, but will then have to do everything on your own when it comes to the military and economy, and will rely more on trade.
reply
Some think that since they united, it has only been English rulers since then and no other form of representation. But there have been Scottish, Welsh and even Irish prime ministers. Although David Lloyd George was born in England, he was Welsh and spoke Welsh as a first language.
Some think that because you are united, one has no freedom. It isn't inherently bad for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to be with England and part of the UK. It is only bad if other sides are treated unfairly. If they are treated equally, the. It's better overall to be united. There won't be too many reasons to be separate and that is usually why countries break up is because other sides are treated unfairly, but if you are you can stay united. True you can make up your own rules when you are broken up, and also aren't obligated to be brought into conflicts, but will then have to do everything on your own when it comes to the military and economy, and will rely more on trade.
reply
historyViewer1
The documentary dives into the political, economic, and social factors that pushed Scotland and England to come together. After years of conflict and rivalry, both nations faced challenges that made union seem like the best solution.
For Scotland, economic troubles and the lure of trade benefits with England were major motivators. Meanwhile, England was looking to secure its northern borders and strengthen its position against potential threats, particularly from France. The documentary also highlights the role of influential figures and the public sentiment of the time, showing how a mix of ambition, necessity, and a desire for stability led to the historic Act of Union.
Ultimately, it’s a story about two nations finding common ground despite their differences, setting the stage for the United Kingdom we know today. The engaging animation brings the historical events to life, making it an entertaining and informative watch.
reply
The documentary dives into the political, economic, and social factors that pushed Scotland and England to come together. After years of conflict and rivalry, both nations faced challenges that made union seem like the best solution.
For Scotland, economic troubles and the lure of trade benefits with England were major motivators. Meanwhile, England was looking to secure its northern borders and strengthen its position against potential threats, particularly from France. The documentary also highlights the role of influential figures and the public sentiment of the time, showing how a mix of ambition, necessity, and a desire for stability led to the historic Act of Union.
Ultimately, it’s a story about two nations finding common ground despite their differences, setting the stage for the United Kingdom we know today. The engaging animation brings the historical events to life, making it an entertaining and informative watch.
reply
mahkhi7154
Scotland (Afghanistan) and England (Above Ground Pakistan) unite
The Sikh Ba5tards Have Made Them War and Tear Themselves Apart.
After Newcastle in Poland is Scotland. Carry on Going To Edinburgh.
After Edinburgh, its Their Scotland (Afghanistan, Carry on going.
At Aberdeen, its Their England (Above Ground Pakistan.
Carry on Going Several Hundred Miles (300, You Get To Old Paris (Boston in America/France)
Another 150 Miles: You Get To - New York. I Dont Go to This New York. By Plane it Would be 3 Hours.
My Flight to New York is 8 Hours.
Another 150 Miles to Baltimore, Washington.
60 Miles to Richmond, Virginia. 100 Miles to Raleigh, North Carolina. 60 Miles to Charlotte, North Carolina.
Another 100 Miles to Atlanta, Georgia. Another 60 Miles to Columbus, Georgia -> Thats Near: The New York, I Go To.
The Reason it Takes 8 Hours by Aeroplane.
reply
Scotland (Afghanistan) and England (Above Ground Pakistan) unite
The Sikh Ba5tards Have Made Them War and Tear Themselves Apart.
After Newcastle in Poland is Scotland. Carry on Going To Edinburgh.
After Edinburgh, its Their Scotland (Afghanistan, Carry on going.
At Aberdeen, its Their England (Above Ground Pakistan.
Carry on Going Several Hundred Miles (300, You Get To Old Paris (Boston in America/France)
Another 150 Miles: You Get To - New York. I Dont Go to This New York. By Plane it Would be 3 Hours.
My Flight to New York is 8 Hours.
Another 150 Miles to Baltimore, Washington.
60 Miles to Richmond, Virginia. 100 Miles to Raleigh, North Carolina. 60 Miles to Charlotte, North Carolina.
Another 100 Miles to Atlanta, Georgia. Another 60 Miles to Columbus, Georgia -> Thats Near: The New York, I Go To.
The Reason it Takes 8 Hours by Aeroplane.
reply
jackdubz4247
Scotland and England didn't unite. They were united by force/coercion/bribery by the Crown - a monarchy that both Scotland and England were ruled under. Had the people of both countries been consulted (not a chance in the 18th century) the so-called union would have never have happened. Even the Scottish nobles who sold Scotland out, and were handsomely rewarded for doing so, regretted it not long after; by which point it was too late. The sooner the union is dissolved the better. Scotland and England are just too different (and becoming ever more so) to continue under the present arrangement.
reply
Scotland and England didn't unite. They were united by force/coercion/bribery by the Crown - a monarchy that both Scotland and England were ruled under. Had the people of both countries been consulted (not a chance in the 18th century) the so-called union would have never have happened. Even the Scottish nobles who sold Scotland out, and were handsomely rewarded for doing so, regretted it not long after; by which point it was too late. The sooner the union is dissolved the better. Scotland and England are just too different (and becoming ever more so) to continue under the present arrangement.
reply
memofromessex
I think the perpertual banditry and the near perpertual state of war on the borders for five hundred - and the trauma that Scottish monarchy personally felt from the Border brigands probably made them keener.
Everyone forgets about the Border Reivers, they weren't a minor inconvience like some books will tell you, but could raid as far as York and Edinburgh, and even raided Newcastle for six-day straight to collect hostages in 1497 as demanded by the Priory of Tynemouth over some minor trade tariff argument with burghers of that wonderful city.
reply
I think the perpertual banditry and the near perpertual state of war on the borders for five hundred - and the trauma that Scottish monarchy personally felt from the Border brigands probably made them keener.
Everyone forgets about the Border Reivers, they weren't a minor inconvience like some books will tell you, but could raid as far as York and Edinburgh, and even raided Newcastle for six-day straight to collect hostages in 1497 as demanded by the Priory of Tynemouth over some minor trade tariff argument with burghers of that wonderful city.
reply
SaorAlba1970
The truth is Scottish ports and harbours were being blockaded by the English navy and a 100, 000 strong invasion army was at our border and the act of union was signed in secret by a bunch of traitors greedy for a few English gold coins, the vast majority of Scots opposed the act of union and riots erupted in Scotland for weeks after it was signed, the English sent up a governor and the next day he was found hanging from a lamp post in Edinburgh
reply
The truth is Scottish ports and harbours were being blockaded by the English navy and a 100, 000 strong invasion army was at our border and the act of union was signed in secret by a bunch of traitors greedy for a few English gold coins, the vast majority of Scots opposed the act of union and riots erupted in Scotland for weeks after it was signed, the English sent up a governor and the next day he was found hanging from a lamp post in Edinburgh
reply
ElliotShayle
What I just can't wrap my head around is how 2 countries with the same ruler were somehow at odds with one another. Even, on a practical level, I genuinely wonder how it worked. Like, when the king went abroad, was it on behalf of Scotland or England What if Scotland was on good terms with the country, but England bad Did the king have to negotiate trade deals in the morning and then threaten invasion in the afternoon
reply
What I just can't wrap my head around is how 2 countries with the same ruler were somehow at odds with one another. Even, on a practical level, I genuinely wonder how it worked. Like, when the king went abroad, was it on behalf of Scotland or England What if Scotland was on good terms with the country, but England bad Did the king have to negotiate trade deals in the morning and then threaten invasion in the afternoon
reply
history_matters
As a Yank of Scottish ancestry the union is not a thing to celebrate but to weep over. London has control my ancestral homeland ever since and freedom is something I dearly identify with as a Yank. They came close last time till London bribed people at the last minute. But with QEII gone perhaps a new vote is due. Having a Rottweiler as a queen might be how the English roll but it is NOT how Scots do things!
reply
As a Yank of Scottish ancestry the union is not a thing to celebrate but to weep over. London has control my ancestral homeland ever since and freedom is something I dearly identify with as a Yank. They came close last time till London bribed people at the last minute. But with QEII gone perhaps a new vote is due. Having a Rottweiler as a queen might be how the English roll but it is NOT how Scots do things!
reply
history_matters
The name of the state created by the acts of union was the Kingdom of Great Britain (1707 - 1800, NOT the United Kingdom of Great Britain.
The United Kingdom was formed in 1800 by combining Ireland with Great Britain. The original full name of the UK was The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Since 1922 it has been known as The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
reply
The name of the state created by the acts of union was the Kingdom of Great Britain (1707 - 1800, NOT the United Kingdom of Great Britain.
The United Kingdom was formed in 1800 by combining Ireland with Great Britain. The original full name of the UK was The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Since 1922 it has been known as The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
reply
boobah5643
Err. as the video itself says, Scotland and England united to form the United Kingdom, not Great Britain. Great Britain is an island, and exists no matter how political entities of whatever type claim its land in whole or in part.
Besides, there are parts of both England and Scotland that are not on Great Britain.
(arguing with the video description, in case that isn't clear)
reply
Err. as the video itself says, Scotland and England united to form the United Kingdom, not Great Britain. Great Britain is an island, and exists no matter how political entities of whatever type claim its land in whole or in part.
Besides, there are parts of both England and Scotland that are not on Great Britain.
(arguing with the video description, in case that isn't clear)
reply
David_Crayford
As a fellow Englishman I would just like to say two things:
1. This is one of the most significant questions to my national identity, and I am pleased you have covered this.
2. I am immensely proud that as of 1st October 2024, the UK no longer uses COAL so, no Black Lung Disease for us. Rest of the World: It's your turn now. Good luck.
reply
As a fellow Englishman I would just like to say two things:
1. This is one of the most significant questions to my national identity, and I am pleased you have covered this.
2. I am immensely proud that as of 1st October 2024, the UK no longer uses COAL so, no Black Lung Disease for us. Rest of the World: It's your turn now. Good luck.
reply
history_matters
2: 17 Actually, they wouldn't have asked the Catholic Stuarts back at that point. The 4th Duke of Hamilton was the most senior Protestant Stuart heir on the Scottish side, and was seen by most as the most likely candidate had Scotland broken off. He was sort of interested until the whole bribery part came up, as shown later in the video.
reply
2: 17 Actually, they wouldn't have asked the Catholic Stuarts back at that point. The 4th Duke of Hamilton was the most senior Protestant Stuart heir on the Scottish side, and was seen by most as the most likely candidate had Scotland broken off. He was sort of interested until the whole bribery part came up, as shown later in the video.
reply
GeorgeWard14
Weak videoall this comes down to the Spanish blockade of Darien. The ultimate reason in this light is that Scotland and England United because Spain forced Scotland’s hand by blockading Darien.
But Anglo-Scottish unification ultimately spelled the end of the Spanish empire. So Spain’s blockade remains an unanswered question.
reply
Weak videoall this comes down to the Spanish blockade of Darien. The ultimate reason in this light is that Scotland and England United because Spain forced Scotland’s hand by blockading Darien.
But Anglo-Scottish unification ultimately spelled the end of the Spanish empire. So Spain’s blockade remains an unanswered question.
reply
vagabondflow
The failure of the Darien colony was only part of it. The Company of Scotland behind the scheme had a few successful trading missions to India - but it was otherwise corrupt and badly-run. It had two feuding boards in Edinburgh and London, and managed to buy a pathetic number of ships relative to the capital it raised.
reply
The failure of the Darien colony was only part of it. The Company of Scotland behind the scheme had a few successful trading missions to India - but it was otherwise corrupt and badly-run. It had two feuding boards in Edinburgh and London, and managed to buy a pathetic number of ships relative to the capital it raised.
reply
michaelbayer5094
I wish the video delved into the process by which James VI of Scotland becomes James I of England. I can only assume there were various factions and schemes for and against James. For example, did powerful Englishmen think that by putting a foreigner on the throne they could increase their power and Parliament's
reply
I wish the video delved into the process by which James VI of Scotland becomes James I of England. I can only assume there were various factions and schemes for and against James. For example, did powerful Englishmen think that by putting a foreigner on the throne they could increase their power and Parliament's
reply
FrostReave
English history really is bizarre. It’s insane how many times they have bumbled their way to success through either sheer coincidence or luck. Every time something bad happened to them their enemies self destructed and every time they attempted something they mess it up several times until something finally sticks.
reply
English history really is bizarre. It’s insane how many times they have bumbled their way to success through either sheer coincidence or luck. Every time something bad happened to them their enemies self destructed and every time they attempted something they mess it up several times until something finally sticks.
reply
jeanbruce3112
The Auld Alliance - Scotland and France.
Queen Anne was terrified that the Scots and French would do a deal.
Why, Scotland and France unite then England cannot protect it's northern border.
The Union of the parliaments gave Westminster the security and added freedom to build an empire.
reply
The Auld Alliance - Scotland and France.
Queen Anne was terrified that the Scots and French would do a deal.
Why, Scotland and France unite then England cannot protect it's northern border.
The Union of the parliaments gave Westminster the security and added freedom to build an empire.
reply
Vmac1394
I cannot wrap my mind around the Darien Scheme. WHY did they think it was a good idea to found a colony in Spanish territory and, if that even was alright, could they do the whole Atlantic to Pacific trade hub thing without a canal that was technologically infeasible at the time
reply
I cannot wrap my mind around the Darien Scheme. WHY did they think it was a good idea to found a colony in Spanish territory and, if that even was alright, could they do the whole Atlantic to Pacific trade hub thing without a canal that was technologically infeasible at the time
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
