Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. we have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over these our states. we have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here, no one of which could warrant so strange a pretension: that these were effected at the expence of our own blood and treasure, unassisted by the wealth or the strength of Great Britain: that in constituing indeed our several forms of government, we had adopted one common king, thereby laying a foundation for perpetual league and amity with them: but that submission to their parliament was no part of our constitution, nor ever in idea, if history may be credited: and we appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, as well as to the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which were likely to interrupt our correspondence and connections. they too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity, and when occasions have been given them, by the regular course of their laws, of removing from their councils the disturbers of our harmony, they have by their free election re-established them in power. at this very time too they are permitting their chief magistrate to send over not only soldiers of our common blood, but Scotch and foreign mercenaries to invade and deluge us in blood. these facts have given the last stab to agonizing affection, and manly spirit bids us to renounce forever these unfeeling brethren. We must endeavor to forget our former love for them, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends. we might have been a free and a great people together; but a communication of grandeur and of freedom it seems is below their dignity. be it so, since they will have it: the road to [glory and] happiness [and to glory] is open to us too; we will climb it apart from them [in a seperate state] and acquiesce in the necessity which denounces [pronounces][ our [everlasting Adieu!] eternal separation!

From the Declaration of Independence, 1st Draft, 1776



Lord grant that Marshal Wade
May by thy mighty aid
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
And like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush.
God save the King!


From "God Save the King", 6th verse, 1745

What is the point of these quotes, I here you ask?

Well, they provide a fascinating insight into the perception of the Scots in the 18th century. It proves that the so-called "Union" of 1707 was a Union in name only. The Scots were outsiders in the British Empire until at least the Napoleonic Wars. You see that the Americans believed that the English were their "brethren", but that the Scots weren't.
Incidentally, that part of the declaration was written by Thomas Jefferson, but removed at the insistance of John Witherspoon, a "Scotchman" himself.
The 6th verse of God save the King, reveals that the Scots were viewed by the English as a subjugated people, not as a "one of our own". It is significant that an anti-Scottish exclamation was incorporated into a song celebrating Great Britain and her monarch. This is contrary to the impression often given of the period, and of what Scots are told in school. They are told that it was a glorious union of two loving peoples, which it clearly was not!

These two passages, selected only from two very famous documents, formed part of a whole culture of anti-Scottish prejudice common in the "British" territories for the eighteenth century. But they are only the tip of the iceberg. They show that English/British/anglo-saxon identity, existed in opposition to the Scots, not witht the Scots included. That would take until the Great War. ;)

The Scots got back the Scone of Stone, so why are they still whining about how the English don't respect them?

Given the circumstances of 1745, calling the Scots rebellious was not too innaccurate. :ack:

I thought everyone knew about how England supressed the Scotish. So your saying that English schools trumpet as a glorious unification? Well that of course is not true it was more of a willing subjegation. Anyhoo they are equals now which is all that matters.

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
Given the circumstances of 1745, calling the Scots rebellious was not too innaccurate. :ack:

Of course they were rebels. No-one could deny that, because the meaning of the word means necessitates that. The point was that, for the 18th century, a British patriotic song was anti-Scottish. There were more Scots fighting for the British than the Jacobite rebels, but the song says "rebellious Scots we shall crush" not "rebellious Jacobites...". The latter would make more sense, but obviously, it was easier to arouse feeling against the Jacobites by calling them "Scots".

The point of the two passages was not to complain or "moan", (I mean, it was 260 years ago for crying out loud - who cares!); rather, it was to make it clear that, to the "British" of the 18th century, the Scots were very much outsiders, a point that is not widely appreciated! ;)

Firstly, 'Jacobites' doesn't have the same rhythm and melody in a song as 'Scots' does.
Secondly, it is plain common sense. Of course they were outsiders, and remained so for some time, although I wouldn't quite leave it as far as the Great War.

As soon as the Scots stop eating salty porridge then people (i.e. the English) will respect them.

Honestly, I'm not impressed by someone whining about the sixth verse of a song written in 1745. Besides, the song says that only the rebellious Scots will be crushed. If a Scot wasn't a rebel, then the song didn't refer to him.