No, actually it was the Picts that merged with the Scots. Yet again you bring up irrelevancies that you seem to know very little about.

Why do you talk so much rubbish? I mean really what the hell? You bring up irrelevant, inaccurate stuff that you only seem to have the vaguest knowledge about and if anyone dares to question you then it means they are anti-English.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:
No, actually it was the Picts that merged with the Scots. Yet again you bring up irrelevancies that you seem to know very little about.

Why do you talk so much rubbish? I mean really what the hell? You bring up irrelevant, inaccurate stuff that you only seem to have the vaguest knowledge about and if anyone dares to question you then it means they are anti-English.

I prefer my version of events, its sounds more honest.

TROLL!
[Rep]

Never

Stop

Posting
[Rep]

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:
Never

Stop

Posting

Spoken like a true TROLL!
[Rep]

Well seeing as the baiting and oneliners in this thread started with you, I don't really care what else you post.

Originally Posted by :
I prefer my version of events, its sounds more honest.

TROLL!

I mean what the hell am I supposed to respond to with this ****?
[Rep]

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:
Because the English invaded them and tried to conquer them, I believe the Auld alliance was started by Robert the Bruce. There was no danger of this in 1707, there was certainly an element of guarding against the Jacobites who drew alot of support in Scotland.

Have you not heard of the war of the Spanish succession? England was at war with France then.
[Rep]

So? So was Scotland. You are talking about Jacobite uprisings which were on behalf of the exiled Stuarts who were Kings of England and Scotland. The reason more Scots supported them actively was simply they were more annoyed at the Whig/Hanoverian gov't in Westminister and most importantly they were further away from its grip. The '15 rising drew support from all over the North of England as well, it was a dynastic and ideological struggle not a national one, there were enough Whig, anti-Jacobites in Scotland as well.
[Rep]

And what if Scotland had changed sides then?

Not uncommon during times of war.
[Rep]

Kentishman said of Alan Craig

"Alan Craig (CPA) - the candidate most local to me as he lives just down the road from me in Canning Town. Became a Newham Councillor in 2002 and was third in the Newham Mayoral election in 2006. He is, however, a Christian Democrat and has taken a strongly anti-Muslim pro-Christian stance on a number of local issues. While I respect Alan's local record, I find his social policies illiberal and inappropriate in a cosmopolitan City like London."


"has taken a strongly anti-Muslim pro-Christian stance"? This is a bit corrupting of the truth. He is against a particular mosque being built which could well promote separatism. He is not anti-Muslim as you suggest.

Is it any wonder politics is so low, when stuff gets peddled that isn't true?
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Northumbrian:
And what if Scotland had changed sides then?

Not uncommon during times of war.

It couldn't change sides, it had the same monarch and no interest in it. And that also isn't a reason to change someone's gov't to yours btw, you could of said the Americans could of removed the British gov't in the war just in case.
[Rep]