why didn't they fight back against british occupation like the irish did?

why didn't they fight back against british occupation like the irish did?

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They did but after being defeated over and over from 1689 to 1746, they just gave up and modernization set it which radically changed Scottish society. The country was basically like Afghanistan until the late 18th century.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Covenanters won under Leslie.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Covenanters won
        Scotland was annexed by England and then the English actions ended with the Scottish church sindering
        They were the 2nd losers of the times only next to the Ulster men who died for William who then banned their culture

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >british occupation
      I didn't know they rebelled against themselves.

      The jacobite wars were not wars of independence.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Prince Charlie had basically been brainwashed from birth by Irish exiles (and the French) and the exiled Stuart’s had made big promises about independence to their Irish supporters. This might be what gives people the impression they’d seek independence for Scotland also. But this is unlikely given the Stuarts by this point absolutely fricking hated Scottish Presbyterianism and probably would have tried to use the Union as a tool to enforce a standard Anglican (or even straight up Catholic) church for all of Britain.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because 80% of Scottish people are actually Anglo Saxons. They like to larp as Celt but they arent at all, they get treated as just bongs in Ireland and they seethe so hard when it happens

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >gets scurvy
      Learn to fish, Sheamus

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Ah yes, Scottish cuisine. Famously rich in fresh fruits and vegetables.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What British occupation?

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Radiochan

    Scotland conquered England, nonna.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There was a stark divide between Urban and Rural populations in Scotland when it came to politics. The urban middle class, where Adam Smith and Hume and so forth came from, were all pro-British and Whiggish in their outlook (greater integration of the isles, greater markets, greater prosperity, etc.) while the rural and conservative Jacobite types were less enthused by it since they didn't really benefit from the access to England's overseas Empire like Edinburgh or Glasgow merchants would.
    As a Protestant country, Scotland was also not subject to any sort of alienating religious conflict like Ireland was. Presbyterian Scots would be commanding British armies and serving as admirals in the British Navy when Catholic Irishmen were still banned from enlisting entirely.
    Places like Glasgow only became famously anti-British Hotspots because of Irish immigration+ Highlander immigration during industrialization. Everyone forgets that like a 1/4 of Scots are mirror images to "Boston Irish" diasporates over in the USA lol.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      do you think the modern conflicts in ireland only happened because they were mostly catholic?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Oh, absolutely, and if they hadn't enclosed on Catholic land nor unfairly preferenced the Protestants in political and economic life it would never have become as bloody. At best it would be like the Germans in trans-Danubia or the Russian Mennonites and other Germans: islands of free Protestant settlements in a sea of Catholicism, without the tension that comes of manoralism. The Germans in Haiti were considered honorary black because they didn't bother anybody.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I think there would be conflicts still, but they'd be very different from what we see today and would probably be far more mild and easy to "bury the hatchet" so to speak.
        I think even in a Protestant Ireland scenario you'd eventually get some butting heads with Westminster due to Ireland's own ruling class possibily seeking out greater autonomy from a centralized London government (much like the Canadians, Aussies and Kiwis all did) and Ireland itself would still be Ireland, i.e. possessing their own identity and national consciousness, which is a product of the UK itself never really putting any effort into really solidifying BRITISH identity as opposed to just chilling with Englishmen, Scots, etc. in a country which is conceptualized as a "union of peoples" rather than a new singular entity.
        We must remember that not everything has to be Catholic vs Protestant or Celtic vs Germanic even. For example, the Norwegians are Nordic and Lutheran just like Sweden and yet Norway fricking hated Sweden and was constantly b***hing for independence for 100 years (and Sweden wasn't even oppressive).

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        yeah

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        absolutely, wales is the perfect proof of this

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        catholics are always scheming and chimping out. Its even worse because low iq irish + catholicism = incredibly stupid people

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          But the Protestant Ulster Scots also constantly ape out and cook up schemes. Real question is why actual Brits aren’t chimping out more, is it low test?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ive never encountered this
            >But the Protestant Ulster Scots

            Rest of your post is putler bot shit. Brits have the highest test in the world

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Mate, there were riots for a year straight because Belfast city hall decided to only fly the Union Jack on the same days as in Britain and not every day of the year. Actual Black mentality moment.
            But nonetheless better display of high test than your ordinary eurocuck.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            literally didn't understand a word of that, try posting before drinking mick

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Low comprehension

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, 100%. Like

        absolutely, wales is the perfect proof of this

        said, Wales serves as perfect proof of how it was religion which was the main and major divider historically. In either scenario where either Britain had remained devoutly Catholic or Ireland had become predominantly Protestant (like Scotland), it's very hard to imagine any of the conflicts which have since defined Ireland popping up. Basically the only things the Irish would have to rely on for their complaints vis-a-vis England would be 1. being taken over in the medieval era, long ago, 2. their language disappearing, and these are all the Welsh and Scots (some of them) have to gripe about - their relations with England are largely very good and of course these entities and cultures are completely integrated.

        In Ireland's case, you have the religious difference not really being theological at all anyway, but political. Catholics were not even effectively but literally siding with Rome, as the Papacy had essentially commanded all Catholics to overthrow the English (and later British) crown and had excommunicated it. To an Anglican government, how could Catholics not be viewed as untrustworthy? By the virtue of being Catholics they were basically screaming that they were against both Parliament and the monarchy. Those who became Anglicans were essentially expressing that they favoured the crown (their own governing authority) and that they didn't care for the Papacy. It's hard to imagine why more didn't make this move, especially since Anglicanism is fundamentally just Catholicism sans Papacy.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          But the Irish and the English were already beefing before Protestantism was even invented and with far less sustainable success than in Wales. Ultimately it was the Tudors who properly united Wales with England because they were themselves Welsh. Outside of some absurdity like a Protestant Irish chief like one of the O’Briens inheriting the crown the English attempts at integrating Ireland probably would have retained this war-of-conquest character.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >But the Irish and the English were already beefing before Protestantism
            Not really, Prior to Henry VIII English presence was almost non-existent beyond the Pale and the Anglo-Normans had themselves Gaelicised.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Right and that is despite Anglo-Norman efforts to conquer it. Prior to the reformation, when it started to take on a kind of holy-war/ethnic cleansing character the English conquest of Ireland was just not happening. It was about as effective as the central governments attempts to unite Somalia.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >especially since Anglicanism is fundamentally just Catholicism sans Papacy.
          Anglicanism as it exists now is basically the product of a never ending series of compromises to try and get all English Christians into one church. Wars have literally been fought on the question of exactly how Protestant the Church of England should be. Had the Puritans had their way it would basically be like the old-school Scottish Kirk.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Anglicanism as it exists now is basically the product of a never ending series of compromises to try and get all English Christians into one church.
            The Catholic church today too panders a great deal, constantly doing its best to widen the doors and to attract newcomers with social progressive appeals. Anglicanism does this as well - these are fading faiths, desperate to entice membership, since they now lack the power to act like tyrants and threaten non-believers.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Also true

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >It's hard to imagine why more didn't make this move, especially since Anglicanism is fundamentally just Catholicism sans Papacy.
          Sure, but try convincing a bunch of illiterate conservative rural bumpkins to change their minds. They're not a demographic known for the openness to change, and that is still true today, as is globally observable.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Was there any Jacobite philosophers?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The IEC was actually disproportionately stuffed with Highlanders. James MacPherson’s literary and political career was in large part financed by a circle of Highland nabobs that made fortunes in India.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Scottish accents soothe my brain

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Very ASMR-like

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They conquered England. Irish got conquered by England.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Braveheart wasn't a documentary?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Honestly, every time I visit this board, the quality of discussion gets more and more stupid. Braveheart WAS a documentary, and I learnt literally everything I know about world history from it.
      >"THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE!!!!!

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    We left faire Scottland’s strand!

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They are British. Presumably you mean English occupation, which didn't happen.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Its mad how successful the Scottish nationalist movement has been at rebranding Scotland from the reality: a willing and if anything proportionally overrepresented partner in empire, to a fantasy of being a poor oppressed victim of English colonialism.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Never ask a man his salary, a woman her age, or a Scottish nationalist what all those names on the Scottish regimental banners mean.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's the issue with projecting present conditions onto the past.
      It's probably true that a total majority of Scots in 1707 did *not* want Union and that it was forced through by the rich elite.
      But at the same time, the type of SNP voter who exists today is the exact demographic who would have supported the union in 1707 (the urban bourgeoise middle class/university educated types). Pro-British unionists were the progressive hippy dippy College Kids of their times, the pro-Scottish independence crowd in 1745 were literal Hillbilly country bumpkins who were religious and hated change.
      It's why modern Scottish civic nationalism can't really bank on Jacobitism as a legacy to work off of, the Jacobites were a bunch of diehard monarchists not a bunch of pro-EU urban young kids.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It’s also of note that the modern day Highlands is a) the most Presbyterian part of Scotland c) the heartland of the Unionist/Rangers side of their culture despite being Gaelic.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >the pro-Scottish independence crowd in 1745 were literal Hillbilly country bumpkins who we
        One commonly misunderstood aspect of 1745 is the fact that Bonnie Prince Charlie was chiefly looking to establish Stuart overlordship across the isles. Scotland would NOT have been independent. Maybe they’d get home rule and autonomy, but they’d still be linked economically, diplomatically, and politically with England. It’s insane that the 45 is romanticized as some last ditch effort to obtain Scottish independence when it had nothing to do with that. Its aim was to help a Catholic monarch rule over BRITAIN. There’s literally no difference between that and the current state of the UK where Scotland has a devolved government.
        And it ignores the fact that the majority of Scotland was AGAINST the Rising. It was basically some Catholic remnants, a couple highland clans, and some really conservative Lowlanders. Most Scots did not support Charlie.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          A Jacobite victory probably would have had the same effect as the restoration where laws passed under the Protestant succession would be considered null and void as they lack legitimate royal assent. In theory that would include the act of Union but as we also saw in the restoration sometimes what has been legislated cannot be simply unlegislated.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Most Scots at the time would never have left their, small villages, likely couldn't read or write and would have had an incredibly narrow minded view of politics, only forming their opinions based on their priest and tiny community. It is quite frankly, irrelavent what they thought as they would have been so easily pliable with any kind of propaganda told to them. The same is true in England.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Take whatever view of the political nation you want, either restricted to the elites or open to everyone, doesn’t matter. The prior point still stands. The 45 Rising was unpopular.
            And your characterization of the common man back then is just insulting and condescending.
            >they were probably dumbies and what they thought didn’t matter.
            Same bullshit today that makes trust fund kiddies in the cities think they know what’s best for everyone. Scotland had very high rates of literacy for the time and common people played a bigger role in past movements, like the Covenanters and the ‘15 Rising. The Scottish reformation for instance was more of a bottom-up phenomenon as well.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But the common man today is barely any better, his analysis is more than fair. Consider the Cromwellian genocide in Ireland was in large part motivated by fake news that never happened.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the Cromwellian genocide in Ireland
            Good grief... not one of you again.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >massacre half a million civilians and try to ethnically cleanse Ireland of any surviving Catholics outside of Clare and Connacht.
            >not genocide
            Sea Turks

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >massacre half a million civilians
            That's the maximum estimate for the total number of deaths from the entire war, much of which came from famine (and some from disease as well) as a byproduct of the war, which was by no means a small conflict. The lowest estimate is around 200,000. Of course you have a narrative you're wanting to uphold, so you don't mention that. Typical.

            Historians really don't know how many died; basically no historian worth their salt would claim such a high number with complete certainty. On that same note, historians tend to note that the Irish Confederate Wars were - despite the claims of the whiny wannabe victim Irish - really largely no worse than the conflicts experienced on the continent at the same time in terms of the acts of violence and the actions carried out by those participating in the conflict.

            >try to ethnically cleanse Ireland of any surviving Catholics
            When did Catholics become an ethnicity? This is just patently false nonsense anyway, anon. Ireland remained overwhelmingly Catholic after the war; the demographics were not majorly or drastically changed thereafter.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The thing about that argument is the conflict on the continent apologists usually point at to justify this is the 30 years war, you know, the one that annihilated half the German population. Only in the 30 years war it was not the targeted genocide of one particular ethnic group.
            >When did Catholics become an ethnicity
            This is literally the Turk defence. When the Irish Gaels mainly remained Catholic and the ones that were Protestant mainly assimilated to Anglo this provided an ethnic dimension to sectarianism, and the Irishness of the enemy was not something that went unnoted in contemporary Parliamentarian discourse.
            > the demographics were not majorly or drastically changed thereafter
            It did make a significant impact on the demographics of Ireland, but mainly in economic terms by dispossessing the majority of the population and introducing effectively a new aristocratic class. But the actual population movement plans of the Cromwellian settlement were as about as easily enforced as Generalplan Ost and were abandoned with the restoration.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The thing about that argument is the conflict on the continent apologists usually point at to justify this is the 30 years war, you know, the one that annihilated half the German population
            Not quite half, anon, but of course it was an enormous conflict that lasted much longer, and typically the longer a war goes on the worse its casualties are, as the total number of those affected/made casualties compounds with the continued passage of time. Gotta remember that disease and famine also caused a huge amount of the deaths, in addition to the fact that it was an abnormally enormous war.
            >Only in the 30 years war it was not the targeted genocide of one particular ethnic group.
            I mean same can be said with the Cromwellian invasion of Ireland, since of course there was the whole Royalist contingent from England that fled there in the first place and which was chased by the Parliamentarian forces, which was the entire reason the war began, but whatever - they don't matter, right? Let's just focus on we ourselves, le downtrodden Irish, because nobody is ever victims but us!
            >This is literally the Turk defence.
            Jesse what the frick are you talking about?
            >by dispossessing the majority of the population
            Omg wow, punitive actions placed upon those deserving punishment so unthinkable, baka! Nothing like this has ever happened before!

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Right, and consider that the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland took only about 4 years. That’s less than half as long as the English war against Hugh O’Neill, until then the largest of the Anglo-Irish wars and did not come close to matching the scale and intensity of assaults on civilians as seen in Cromwell’s campaign. The efficiency of the relatively modern New Model Army is seen not just in how effective it was against the unreformed armies it was fighting against, but also how effective it was at culling civilian populations too.
            >which was the entire reason the war began
            I was just about to say the same thing. Before it was Cromwell the Parliamentarian butchering the Irish it was Murrough O’Brien, a royalist who was Irish himself. Only without the effectiveness as he got BTFO. And the Royalists and the Confederates still allied against Cromwell. Consider that, perhaps, if a dude who beheads his own king, massacres his own countrymen and basically invents the tinpot dictatorship, this does not make it any more surprising that he would also try to cleanse a country of its people. I do not see how pointing out what a scumbag he was to the English as well is supposed to be a défense.
            >Jesse what the frick are you talking about?
            Greek or Armenian speaking Muslims were not targeted by the Turks for ethnic cleansing, they discriminated between Turk and Greek/Armenian purely on the basis of religion. Even the Yazidi genocide by ISIS a few years ago was entirely religiously motivated. It’s no defense that Catholicism is not an ethnicity when very often ethnicities are emergent from the religious situation. As is seen very well in Ireland even today with the Ulster Scots
            >Omg wow, punitive actions placed upon those deserving punishment so unthinkable
            What exactly are they guilty of? Loyalty to the king? Or the aforementioned fake news mentioned earlier?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I do not see how pointing out what a scumbag he was to the English as well is supposed to be a défense.
            The point being that the Irish really didn't have it much worse. Same exact thing on either side of the era. Bogtrotters always exaggerate how much worse they had things, despite the fact that there is an enormous abundance of evidence that their lives were almost completely in no ways worse than those of the Scottish, Welsh, and English working poor.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Did Cromwell kill up to 60% of the English, Scottish or Welsh population and try to force the migration of the survivors to like 1/5th of the country? I don’t see why you insist on reading pointing out that what the Parliamentarians were doing in Ireland was genocidal as denying such a tyrannical regime was also tyrannical in Britain.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Scotland would NOT have been independent.
          Source?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not him but he's right. The Jacobite cause was not for independence but for Catholic restoration.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So cool wheres the source?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This is pretty common knowledge amongst the historically learned (as opposed to the layman).

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So no source okay

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobite_rising_of_1745
            >The Jacobite rising of 1745 was an attempt by Charles Edward Stuart to regain the British throne for his father, James Francis Edward Stuart.
            Wow, that was so difficult to find.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So where does that say they planned definitively not to release Scotland from England?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >So where does that say they planned definitively not to release Scotland from England?
            Where does it definitively say they did plan to sever Scotland from England? And ask yourself honestly: what kind of moron would do that, thereby significantly weakening his revenue and holdings?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Where does it definitively say they did plan to sever Scotland from England
            Poetry was written by Jacobites mentioning this

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Which Jacobites? Who/where/when? Any chump can be deluded or fooled into believing the cause he fights for is for a reason other than that it is actually being fought for. Just look at all those young Ruzzians being sent into the meat grinder by the Putin regime. Guaranteed a hell of a lot of them genuinely think they're there to fight a) Nazism b) American socio-political takeover c) for Luhansk and Donetsk's 'freedom'.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That anon responded and gave you a very clear source. Just admit you’re wrong. Any book you read about the ‘45 is clear about this. The Stuarts wanted the entire throne of the UK. If they just wanted an independent Scotland, then Charlie wouldn’t have gone south into England to claim the English crown as well.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >But at the same time, the type of SNP voter who exists today is the exact demographic who would have supported the union in 1707 (the urban bourgeoise middle class/university educated types). Pro-British unionists were the progressive hippy dippy College Kids of their times,

        Same as Ukraine, the urban elite saw themselves as Russian and saw Russian language and getting closer to Moscow as modernization, meanwhile it was backwater galicians who were the most seething.
        Another thing about scots as well, is that they pretend they weren't really pro-Empire today, yet Scotland arguably had the most imperial, colonialistic population in the UK, and it was the Scottish clan system, that allowed Scots have the knowledge to so effectively manipulate and control tribes the empire encountered. Glasgow was arguably the richest city in the British Empire.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Scots are more evolved than the Irish. Literally they are more intelligent.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >live in a land of crotch-high thistles
      >don't invent pants
      real geniuses

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Highlanders were actually enthusiastic adopters of pants, they were just an expensive status-symbol for the gentry. The actual traditional garment of Highland gentlemen was a pair of trousers called Trews, accompanied by a large kind of toga called a great-plaid (or a “kilt”. What we now call a “kilt” was invented by an English Quaker industrialist as a more practical version of the greatplaid for his workmen that could not afford Trews.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Fun trivia to also note, "Kilt" itself is a Norse word, not Gaelic.
          And yeah it was originally more of a big ole cloak think you could wear in whichever way you really felt like. The whole "rules" about Highlander dress are literally just products of the Royal family choosing to wear them and setting new standards for how to do it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Fun trivia to also note, "Kilt" itself is a Norse word, not Gaelic
            Luckily the Gaelic word is... Gaelic and the kilt doesn't apparently appear until hundreds of years after the Norwegians

            Its mad how successful the Scottish nationalist movement has been at rebranding Scotland from the reality: a willing and if anything proportionally overrepresented partner in empire, to a fantasy of being a poor oppressed victim of English colonialism.

            >willing and if anything proportionally overrepresented partner in empire
            Please explain how families being replaced by sheep and deported to wilderness in Canada were benefiting from an empire

            They did but after being defeated over and over from 1689 to 1746, they just gave up and modernization set it which radically changed Scottish society. The country was basically like Afghanistan until the late 18th century.

            >They did but after being defeated over and over from 1689 to 1746
            Only good post
            >The country was basically like Afghanistan until the late 18th century
            Meaningless

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            To be fair this is not something the English did to the Scottish, or even necessarily what the Lowlanders did to the Highlanders. The clearances, all over Scotland but mainly the Highlands, was the work of their own lairds and clan chiefs.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This. And then the estate managers were typically lowland Scots who had a disdain for highlanders. Iirc, the worse clearances were in Sutherland and that was done and managed by lowlanders, including Scottish police.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >lowland Scots
            Meaningless

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Scots
            >meaningless
            Okay, then the Scots that didn’t live in the more rural northern parts of the country. Use whatever dumb word you want to use. It was the Scots themselves either way.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Please explain how families being replaced by sheep and deported to wilderness in Canada were benefiting from an empire
            Not him but it's clear he's referring to Lowlands Scots who disproportionately served in the military and with cities like Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, etc. enriched from their role in imperial trade and exports. I imagine you're referring to the Highland Clearances, ironically, most Highlanders who moved to Australia and New Zealand ended up providing direct competition to the sheep farmers in Scotland as they too farmed sheep in the colonies, but in greater numbers.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >people from the south being forced into cities
            ...
            >people from the north being forced into cities
            I'm going crazy

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Maybe the gentry adopted it fast, but the common man didn’t. I read a book about highland regiments serving in the British army and the common soldier was pretty adamant about retaining kilts, including the modern version when those were introduced.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There’s 2 reasons for this
            1. The Highlands were broke. While the gentry would traditionally wear Trews and a great-plaid, all dyed in whatever colours and patterns they fancied. The commoners would wear just a simple undyed great-plaid in natural brown tones. The regimental uniforms were a bit different as they had their own regimental colours and they were immediate adopters of the small kilt as it is just flat out more practical than a massive 9 yard rectangle of fabric. What we think of now as “proper” Highland dress is really quite modern and originates partly in the Highland regiments and partly from the hype built up around King George’s visit to Edinburgh.
            2. Outside of Highland regiments the traditional Highland dress was flat out banned for about 30 years after the Jacobite rising for Prince Charles Edward Stuart.
            It’s also worth noting that the Trews are more ancient than the kilt (at least for its history in Scotland). The great plaid was introduced in medieval times by Gaels but we have ancient Roman depictions of Picts wearing what appear to be patterned Trews. They also were not competitive garments, the mark of a gentlemen was wearing both in good quality dyed fabrics, given the size of the great plaid it could be worn as a kind of sash/cape, as a cloak or as a kind of full body toga. The painting posted of Sir John Sinclair shows what a member of the officer class in the Highland regiments of the late 18th century would have actually dressed like before the adoption of the small kilt.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The army refused to give up the kilt because it played into their larp of recruiting “martial races” like highlanders and Sikhs in India (lots of regiments in commonwealth countries that originally had a “martial race” larp still wear kilts). The average highland peasant was wearing trousers by that point.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Maybe that’s true. It’s only in one book I read about the subject so I’m not an expert or anything. It did say however that the English and Lowland officers who joined those regiments did attempt to get highland soldiers to wear pants and it caused a fuss. It explained that part of the reason was that they felt kilts were more comfortable and let you be more agile. I don’t know, but I agree that larp was probably a big part of it.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >1707+297
      >Scots still haven’t figured out how to achieve independence.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        why is independence needed? its irish just seething at Britain

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Absurd question. Why is moving out of your mums house needed?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            so you dont have an answer besides The British union of Scotland and Whales and England should just split up just because, irish butthurt reasons
            Ironically the union was created by Scotland and Scotland has quite a bit of power in it

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ngl voting to be annexed by another country and then voting against independence 300 years later is just more than a bit feminine.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They literally WERE the British. Scots have literally been Anglos with an accent since the 1100s. Only cringe larp in the 1800s around Gaelic bullshit, that the Scots themselves destroyed, changed this perception. I’d respect Scots wanting their own nation if it wasn’t based around literally bullshit.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Convinces your proudly Germanic Anglo-Saxon country that they wuz fenians n shieeeet
    The SNP should have a 50 foot tall golden statue of MacPherson. Greatest cultural subversion ever, the 18th century equivalent of anime turning the grandchildren of WW2 GIs into weebs.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >devour the Scots
    >nothing personal kiddo

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Act of Union protected the Scottish church, legal system, local government, a separate national identity etc. so they had no incentive to rebel.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the people did, put up a good fight as well, thousands died for the cause over years of warfare. the elites caved in and sold us out, and that was that. bought and sold for english gold.
    as time went on, the elites profited greatly through their participation in the empire, big cities saw some of that profit, while highland populations and culture got gutted to prevent any more rebellion.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *