Scottish and Freedom?

I think everyone I know the past few weeks has asked about my opinion in regards to the Scottish independence movement and if I thought if they should be independent. It is safe to say that I've seen a few people look pretty shocked when I say... no, I think Scotland is good where it is, but I'm not subjugating a people or forgetting their struggles with their once occupying neighbor to the South... it is more of a current economic climate and logic decision and I honestly think that the few economic boosts Scotland has going for it would not be sufficient to support the country's population economically and thus Scotland would decline and its people would suffer... and let us be fair, Scotland being a part of the UK has nothing in common now as it did when it struggled for independence a few times in the past... NOTHING in common... I do not even think Scotland has anything in common with Northern Ireland...who I think SHOULD be a part of Ireland and not the UK by the way...

Did you like my intro into discussing Scottish history today?

So I will admit, I watch Outlander the Starz television show based on the quasi-romance novel of the same name by Diana Gabaldon. I actually caught up on the show today...and what an episode it was...whew!

Anyway...
The show and the novel has caused me to look back at the Battle of Culloden...

It is so hard to root against the Redcoats sometimes... look how cool they look....

The Battle of Culloden took place on 16 April 1746. The eighteenth century was a rough period for the British in a way... the seventeenth was a time of chaos, war, and blood... and the English...after this period, often had a grudge against the Stuart family. Sure, James I was tolerable, but a hard sale after Elizabeth I's age, even if her administrative methods left the country a bit cash poor. James Stuart was also James VI, King of Scotland, the son of a beheaded Mary Queen of Scots (who he sold out by the way and totally promised his cousin Elizabeth that he would not retaliate for his mother's beheading as long as he was the heir... nice kid right!). He had this odd reign where he and parliament argued over legislative power and control...and that continued when Charles I took the throne in 1625 and he also fought bitterly with parliament over control...and because I am not discussing that at the moment...let us just jump to the whole beheading, crazy violent time in England...Charles II... more problems...William of Orange...more problems...Anne...Hanovers take over and lots of Georges follow...Scotland does not like the King, Scotland wants rights and FREEDOM! (I cannot help it)

Back to Culloden...

By the way, while I am in no way a France hater...at all, I like France... the 18th century was totally not a time to try to work with the French to perhaps get someone on the English throne.  The British and the French were basically at war with each other every other day...and France's administrative and economic methods were what I am going to simply call...questionable. 

Scotland went to France because it would make sense that they did so, Jacobite rebellions were fostered by the French, especially when the British had such a problem with Catholics and the British were the annoyed rivals of the French. Just think about the crazy Alabama fan who poisoned the Auburn trees...it is that kind of hate. 

Tensions, tensions...violence...unrest... leads eventually to rebellion in a swords/guns/fighting sort of way, not some glorious revolution where people hug it out and say Let us change our government (it really did not happen that way then either, but yea...another story). 

The Duke of Cumberland, the guy who was at the head of the English forces...was decent militarily and it helped that he had quite a few men behind him, more men than the Scots who oppose them and unlike many movies and fictional portrayals of outnumbered forces...they usually lose, no matter how much heart they have.

Duke William was a Prince, highly educated, and honestly...just had more men and better equipment to handle an already disorganized and not wonderfully led group of Scots. I do not place the blame on Lord John Murray, he did what he could at the location chosen for him... but, these guys had swords and the British had guns and cannons... we all know what will happen when you get on a boggy field with some swords and shields against more modern weaponry...you get owned in the face...and the Scottish did. 

Around four thousand people died overall in the battle... and I will say the Scots took out quite a few dudes.

Interesting tidbits, the sides were not as stark as some of your romantic tales may portray them... scots fought for the British as well in that battle, not everyone was enamoured with Bonnie Prince Charlie (I would not be...he was kind of a loser).