Battle of Culloden 279 years ago

[Troglodyte]

Apologies from me are due, I think. My knowledge of Scottish history is meager. Yes, I took two semesters of British (primarily English) history in my sophomore year of college, but memories dim 6 decades on…

My point, however, was based on the stories told by the exhibits I visited at Culloden and the Edinburgh Castle museum, from which I have fresher memories. At Culloden, it was made clear that some Clans and lowlanders were participants in British Army uniforms, but I think it was NOT suggested that many Scots in the British Parliament favored the Articles of Proscription. And (admittedly from a visit now more than 2 decades ago) I came away from the Edinburgh Castle Museum with a similar opinion. Do you (or others) feel I misrepresented the story its exhibits tell to someone not already knowledgeable about Scottish history?

Of course, your final paragraphs can be read as saying you agree with me about those exhibits. And, the longest line I encountered at the Edinburgh Castle in summer of 2023 was the wait to glance at the Stone of Scone…

What's happening here in the US demonstrates just how easily such bias can be spliced or bludgeoned into remembering our past. One of our greatest historical monuments (The Smithsonian Institute) is in the process of submitting to a forced and fictitious retelling the history of our (previously) darkest time, expunging memories of what our Civil War was really about (people entitled to OWN other people),and resurrecting fame for Confederate Generals. Truth is a precious commodity whose value is too often under-rated.

I'm pretty sure you understood the historical message as the displays and exhibitions intend - a good deal of Scottish history is embarrassing for many Scots, so to have the Engish on hand to blame does very nicely, thank you!

The funny thing is, the English (in my experience) actually love their Celtic neighbours - except when playing each other at footie - and are amused when the resounding victory that was Bannockburn is used against them. The English know that took place 720 years ago, and respond with 'Name another...'

This cross-border bickering between Scots and English is nothing new, even when it's not actually military combat. Samuel Johnson met with similar challenges in his 1775 tour of Scotland and the Highlands, notably on independance and the English treatment of Mary, Queen of Scots. He deals with them in his usual sit-down-and-shut-up style, and demonstrates how the Scots are ultimately to blame for accepting English money in exchange. Just as they did when they sold Charles I to Cromwell & Co. and handed the hapless king to the Parliamentarians for his eventual execution. 'The Englsih made us do it by giving us money' is not an honourable defence.

Even though England and Scotland were effectively at war when Mary was being held prisoner by her English cousin, Elizabeth, not a single Scot took a step into England, nor even raised arms to rescue her. Sure, Scotland's last and best-loved Queen was killed in England, but every living Scot at the time was complicit according to Johnson. Was he wrong?

It has been said of the English that they lose every battle except the final decider - this certainly seems to be true where Anglo-Scottish enmity is concerned. No regiment in the British army has Culloden among its battles-honours - there is nothing honourable in supressing a rebellion and killing your own people.