What was Scotland at the time - the Northern Isles weren't part of the Kingdom of Scotland. The Scotland that was subject to the Wars of Independence hasn't existed for centuries.
What was? Orkney and Shetland? They weren't part of the Kingdom of the Picts during the Wars of Independence - they belonged to Norway from 875 until 1468. The picts were prior to this, but then you're starting to get into the Iron Age when England wasn't a unified Kingdom either so it's inconsequential either way.
Most of what you know now including Berwick and the Isle Of Man.
And? It just furthers the point that when "Scotland" is mentioned in the historical context of independence, it's a Scotland that doesn't currently exist. Different time, different place, different people, different struggle.
What was? Orkney and Shetland? They weren't part of the Kingdom of the Picts during the Wars of Independence - they belonged to Norway from 875 until 1468. The picts were prior to this, but then you're starting to get into the Iron Age when England wasn't a unified Kingdom either so it's inconsequential either way.
They belonged to the Picts before Norway.
Norway / Denmark only held them for as long as they were conquering the British Isles
And? It just furthers the point that when "Scotland" is mentioned in the historical context of independence, it's a Scotland that doesn't currently exist. Different time, different place, different people, different struggle.
Not sure what your point is mate. I was just answering a question about Scotland being conquered, seemed to me people had forgotten Edward 1 conquered it. Its part of our history, that's all I was saying.
Norway / Denmark only held them for as long as they were conquering the British Isles
I said they were inhabited by Picts before they belonged to Norway. I said it here: "The picts were prior to this". I'm not sure how you've manage to misconstrue this.
Denmark never held the Northern Isles. Harald the Fair was the Norwegian King who annexed them. The Jarls owed allegiance to Norway, not Denmark. The Northern Isles were not "held onto" for "as long as they were conquering the British Isles" - they were given as a pledge for marriage of The Maid of Norway to the Scottish monarchy, but she died before the marriage could happen. In fact, it was the death of Margaret the Maid of Norway on Orkney that ultimately led to the Wars of Independence.
Labour a willing sacrifice in Osborne campaign of terror
Chancellor George Osborne appears to hope you are in what doctors call a right old state. He has threatened to deny you the pounds in your pocket. Danny Alexander, dutiful Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the son the Tory Party never had, has been quick to agree. Curiously, the Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, has completed the harmonising trio
So you people are now accusing the Chancellor of being a terrorist ?
Not sure what your point is mate. I was just answering a question about Scotland being conquered, seemed to me people had forgotten Edward 1 conquered it. Its part of our history, that's all I was saying.
I said they were inhabited by Picts before they belonged to Norway. I said it here: "The picts were prior to this". I'm not sure how you've manage to misconstrue this.
Denmark never held the Northern Isles. Harald the Fair was the Norwegian King who annexed them. The Jarls owed allegiance to Norway, not Denmark. The Northern Isles were not "held onto" for "as long as they were conquering the British Isles" - they were given as a pledge for marriage of The Maid of Norway to the Scottish monarchy, but she died before the marriage could happen. In fact, it was the death of Margaret the Maid of Norway on Orkney that ultimately led to the Wars of Independence.
She was Alexander 111s heir. But in an early attempt by Edward 1 to get Scotland under his control he insisted she marry his son. Edward 11.
I said they were inhabited by Picts before they belonged to Norway. I said it here: "The picts were prior to this". I'm not sure how you've manage to misconstrue this.
Denmark never held the Northern Isles. Harald the Fair was the Norwegian King who annexed them. The Jarls owed allegiance to Norway, not Denmark. The Northern Isles were not "held onto" for "as long as they were conquering the British Isles" - they were given as a pledge for marriage of The Maid of Norway to the Scottish monarchy, but she died before the marriage could happen. In fact, it was the death of Margaret the Maid of Norway on Orkney that ultimately led to the Wars of Independence.
The Earldom of Orkney was held for the Norwegian (and later Danish) Crown until 1468, at which time the impoverished Christian I, King of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, gave Orkney to the Scottish Crown as part of a marriage agreement with King James III.
Interestingly, the missing link comes from a website about English Monarchs..
"The Picts may have been unusual in operating a matrilineality based society, with land, property and position passing through the female line, which is how Kenneth McAlpin, first King of the Scotland, the son of a Pictish princess, came to occupy the throne."
She was Alexander 111s heir. But an early attempt by Edward 1 to get Scotland under his control he insisted she marry his son. Edward 11.
What has any of that got to do with your claim that the Northern Isles were owned by Denmark? They weren't, and never have been. Scotland did not include the Northern Isles at the time. That's the point - the Wars of Independence did not include parts of present day Scotland because they weren't part of Scotland at all.
More an assertion that Scotland had never been conquered. I really wasn't intending to get embroiled in an argument over it.
I've never claimed that Scotland hasn't been conquered - only that hasn't been conquered in the past 300 years and that the Scotland that was conquered prior to this isn't the same place that will potentially become independent in the future.
What has any of that got to do with your claim that the Northern Isles were owned by Denmark? They weren't, and never have been. Scotland did not include the Northern Isles at the time. That's the point - the Wars of Independence did not include parts of present day Scotland because they weren't part of Scotland at all.
Mate your getting me mixed up with another poster.
A bit like Salmond refering to Sterling as a millstone around Scotland neck.
Clegg and Cable, in short, got the most important economic call of our era wrong, arguing that we should join the euro so as to enjoy “stability”. And, despite their denials, they remain unrepentant: they still want to scrap the pound. It’s not Cleggie’s personal integrity that’s in doubt; it’s his political integrity.
The Deputy PM
Business Secretary Vince Cable has said he would make a good chancellor but he was "not pushing for the job":o
Scotland was conquered in 1304 by Edward 1, Robert The Bruce through a campaign of guerrilla warfare between 1306 and 1314 reconquered it. Only Stirling castle remained in English control by 1314 this being the catalyst to Bannockburn.
Not entirely true. The Bruce's didn't always fight just for Scotland. Bruce's father helped conquer the Welsh and fought for Edward the first. Likewise bruce himself submitted to Edward.
However, after some intrigue in which Bruce stabbed a rival to the throne he was crowned king in 1306. Bruce then continued a campaign of guerrilla style warfare until 1314 when he won a startling victory at Bannockburn.
Scotland wasn't conquered as various leaders including Wallace actively resisted the invader. The wars of independence and the wars with England would continue. Bruce also invaded Ireland in 1315 for various reasons including starting a Scottish dynasty there when hid brother Edward Bruce was declared King of Ireland. By 1318 it was all over as the Scottish army became more and more unpopular as it survived by pillaging.
Scotland's history isn't always straight forward, one things for sure though, the Bruce wouldn't have entered a currency union.
It won't be long now until the SNP use the anniversary of the battle for propaganda. Get ready for comparisons between the Bruce and the Salmond...........
Precisely why I can't abide any comments where Scotland is made out to be worse off under the "ruling class" of England. Take the union out of the equation and the divisions present in Scotland will still be there because there is and always has been a ruling class in Scotland of its own making.
I couldn't agree more.
Scotland has a whole litany of ruling classes doing just the same as anywhere else. A few weeks ago the highland clearances were dragged out again for example and was postured as if it was an English action. Which it plainly wasn't.
I'm sure Robert the Bruce himself didn't have much thought for Scottish peasants during his daily life.
Not sure what your point is mate. I was just answering a question about Scotland being conquered, seemed to me people had forgotten Edward 1 conquered it. Its part of our history, that's all I was saying.
I recall my original statement was that Scotland hadn't been conquered in the last 300 years, which I believe remains true.
Not entirely true. The Bruce's didn't always fight just for Scotland. Bruce's father helped conquer the Welsh and fought for Edward the first. Likewise bruce himself submitted to Edward.
However, after some intrigue in which Bruce stabbed a rival to the throne he was crowned king in 1306. Bruce then continued a campaign of guerrilla style warfare until 1314 when he won a startling victory at Bannockburn.
Scotland wasn't conquered as various leaders including Wallace actively resisted the invader. The wars of independence and the wars with England would continue. Bruce also invaded Ireland in 1315 for various reasons including starting a Scottish dynasty there when hid brother Edward Bruce was declared King of Ireland. By 1318 it was all over as the Scottish army became more and more unpopular as it survived by pillaging.
Scotland's history isn't always straight forward, one things for sure though, the Bruce wouldn't have entered a currency union.
It won't be long now until the SNP use the anniversary of the battle for propaganda. Get ready for comparisons between the Bruce and the Salmond...........
Wallace was refused terms, and the Scottish nobles set the task of capturing him. The governor of Dumbarton Castle finally captured him. He was executed in 1305. There's was no resistance Scotland was conquered. The rest of your post is sketchy rubbish you've lifted from the net. Read a book on the subject.
Comments
They were part of the Kingdom of the Picts..
Most of what you know now including Berwick and the Isle Of Man.
What was? Orkney and Shetland? They weren't part of the Kingdom of the Picts during the Wars of Independence - they belonged to Norway from 875 until 1468. The picts were prior to this, but then you're starting to get into the Iron Age when England wasn't a unified Kingdom either so it's inconsequential either way.
And? It just furthers the point that when "Scotland" is mentioned in the historical context of independence, it's a Scotland that doesn't currently exist. Different time, different place, different people, different struggle.
They belonged to the Picts before Norway.
Norway / Denmark only held them for as long as they were conquering the British Isles
Not sure what your point is mate. I was just answering a question about Scotland being conquered, seemed to me people had forgotten Edward 1 conquered it. Its part of our history, that's all I was saying.
I said they were inhabited by Picts before they belonged to Norway. I said it here: "The picts were prior to this". I'm not sure how you've manage to misconstrue this.
Denmark never held the Northern Isles. Harald the Fair was the Norwegian King who annexed them. The Jarls owed allegiance to Norway, not Denmark. The Northern Isles were not "held onto" for "as long as they were conquering the British Isles" - they were given as a pledge for marriage of The Maid of Norway to the Scottish monarchy, but she died before the marriage could happen. In fact, it was the death of Margaret the Maid of Norway on Orkney that ultimately led to the Wars of Independence.
So you people are now accusing the Chancellor of being a terrorist ?
A bit like Salmond refering to Sterling as a millstone around Scotland neck.
What question was that?
She was Alexander 111s heir. But in an early attempt by Edward 1 to get Scotland under his control he insisted she marry his son. Edward 11.
More an assertion that Scotland had never been conquered. I really wasn't intending to get embroiled in an argument over it.
I missed it.. sorry about that
http://www.orkneyjar.com/history/history6.htm
The Earldom of Orkney was held for the Norwegian (and later Danish) Crown until 1468, at which time the impoverished Christian I, King of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, gave Orkney to the Scottish Crown as part of a marriage agreement with King James III.
Interestingly, the missing link comes from a website about English Monarchs..
http://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/picts.html
"The Picts may have been unusual in operating a matrilineality based society, with land, property and position passing through the female line, which is how Kenneth McAlpin, first King of the Scotland, the son of a Pictish princess, came to occupy the throne."
What has any of that got to do with your claim that the Northern Isles were owned by Denmark? They weren't, and never have been. Scotland did not include the Northern Isles at the time. That's the point - the Wars of Independence did not include parts of present day Scotland because they weren't part of Scotland at all.
I've never claimed that Scotland hasn't been conquered - only that hasn't been conquered in the past 300 years and that the Scotland that was conquered prior to this isn't the same place that will potentially become independent in the future.
Mate your getting me mixed up with another poster.
I never wrote that piece, I'm not accusing anybody of anything.
Do you agree with the piece, that he is a terrorist ?
Scotland wasn't conquered and forced to join the union. That's exactly what I meant. Cromwell was a different thing.
Clegg and Cable, in short, got the most important economic call of our era wrong, arguing that we should join the euro so as to enjoy “stability”. And, despite their denials, they remain unrepentant: they still want to scrap the pound. It’s not Cleggie’s personal integrity that’s in doubt; it’s his political integrity.
Business Secretary Vince Cable has said he would make a good chancellor but he was "not pushing for the job":o
Not entirely true. The Bruce's didn't always fight just for Scotland. Bruce's father helped conquer the Welsh and fought for Edward the first. Likewise bruce himself submitted to Edward.
However, after some intrigue in which Bruce stabbed a rival to the throne he was crowned king in 1306. Bruce then continued a campaign of guerrilla style warfare until 1314 when he won a startling victory at Bannockburn.
Scotland wasn't conquered as various leaders including Wallace actively resisted the invader. The wars of independence and the wars with England would continue. Bruce also invaded Ireland in 1315 for various reasons including starting a Scottish dynasty there when hid brother Edward Bruce was declared King of Ireland. By 1318 it was all over as the Scottish army became more and more unpopular as it survived by pillaging.
Scotland's history isn't always straight forward, one things for sure though, the Bruce wouldn't have entered a currency union.
It won't be long now until the SNP use the anniversary of the battle for propaganda. Get ready for comparisons between the Bruce and the Salmond...........
I couldn't agree more.
Scotland has a whole litany of ruling classes doing just the same as anywhere else. A few weeks ago the highland clearances were dragged out again for example and was postured as if it was an English action. Which it plainly wasn't.
I'm sure Robert the Bruce himself didn't have much thought for Scottish peasants during his daily life.
And along came the Scots and wiped out the indigenous Picts.......
A whole lot of changing history, we may have been Pictland today if not for the Scots.
In fact the declaration of Arbroath crows about exterminating the Picts.
I recall my original statement was that Scotland hadn't been conquered in the last 300 years, which I believe remains true.
Wallace was refused terms, and the Scottish nobles set the task of capturing him. The governor of Dumbarton Castle finally captured him. He was executed in 1305. There's was no resistance Scotland was conquered. The rest of your post is sketchy rubbish you've lifted from the net. Read a book on the subject.