Yes, but the anecdote about the 78th is pretty likely to be false. Dunrobin castle has probably been selected as emblematic of the Clearances.

The Clearances have continued in a more low key mode into more recent times - Victorian, early 20th century etc.

But there are those who claim - in all seriousness - that it never happened.

"What year is this? Is this 1988 or 2008? Scotland has home rule and self-determination! "

It has devolution, but I don't recall us ever being asked if we wanted to remain part of the UK. We've had no referendum on that - and it cannot be claimed (from either POV) reasonably that a vote for the SNP is the same as a vote for independence.

"What I take issue with is Mr. Salmond going about acting as if the Scottish situation is akin to that in Bosnia-Hercegovina or Tibet."

You're right. Scotland had its wars and massacres in the 17th and 18th centuries, plus deportation to Australia in the 18th and 19th century for troublemakers, democrats and what have you. They don't do that anymore here.

"If you want to complain, then I would start with: why doesn’t England and Wales have a parliament like Scotland’s? "

I've always argued that they should do. But in truth, Westminster is the old English parliament, complete with pre-union features, expanded. The Scottish Parliament had no real input into the post-1707 parliament other than a few extra seats - we got lumbered with the cumbersome Lords system, but England (probably to its favour) didn't get our Three Estates system.

" you started quoting things that happened long ago and to be frank are irrelevant "

If you believe the past has no influence on the present, you are incredibly naive. The effects of the Clearances, enacted by our anglicised aristocracy (not just in the Highlands either) are still with us. Just as the effects of British colonialism in Africa (yes, many Scots involved) still affect Zimbabwe (thanks to our failure to deal with the land question), Kenya (thanks to setting tribe against tribe) and even South Africa (where we had our own segregation laws before the Afrikaaners took over)

But then again, isn't Jefferson "long ago and irrelevant" according to the logic of the eternal present? You can't have it both ways.

"I am sure there are countless tales of English peasants undergoing the same ordeal"

Which justifies such actions in Scotland and Ireland presumably.

I know for a fact English peasants did have problems - witness John Ball and Kett's Rebellion - but get real, if it happened anywhere, it's no excuse for it happening somewhere else.

"Why don’t the nationalist try to solve that? Why don’t the nationalist try to come up with positives ways to fix the imbalances rather than taking the selfish us-versus-them stance? "

Actually they are. Perhaps you could come up here and see some time.

"Lastly, if Scotland wants to move beyond its imperial past, then an apology to its former colonies for its role in the British Empire would be a start."

The only colonies we have ever had - as Scotland alone are Darien and the Northern Isles.

independence is a rejection of the disgusting British colonial past that Scots tarnished themselves with. The best thing people in England can do, is to disown their Britishness too, as a means to the same end.

"At the very hour that Nana Sahib was being crushed and Cawnpore [in India] being taken by the 78th Regiment, the fathers, mothers and children of the 78th were being evicted within a few miles of Dunrobin castle."

That's an extraordinary coincidence. Are you sure it's not romantic mythology? Cawnpore was in 1857, well past the highpoint of the Clearances.

The Scots' dual role as colonists and colonised is hardly unique. The Hungarians and Ukrainians also managed to be both.

Indians were also full participants in the British Empire. There were only 200,000 Europeans in India at most, and the Maharajahs profitted from British rule at times, sending their children to Eton, Harrow and the like. In addition, Indian soldiers joined the British Army and fought on a number of fronts in the empire, and various Indian merchants, tailors benefitted from the colonisation of Africa, forming little communities in areas as far apart as South Africa and Uganda (whence Idi Amin expelled them as imperialists). None of this invalidated the right of India to independence though.

Sorley MacLean puts the Scottish situation well in "The Poetry of the Clearances", which can be found in his collected prose. MacLean was a native Gaelic speaker and no Romantic, and probably one of Scotland's best poets of the 20th century. -

"For all those reasons the Highlanders' resistance, spiritual and moral, was bound to be weak and the poetry of the period reflects this impotence. There was one political factor which ought ideally to have helped the crofters, namely, the great services of Highland soldiers to the Empire. Alexander MacKenzie has called attention to factual comment on this:

'At the very hour that Nana Sahib was being crushed and Cawnpore [in India] being taken by the 78th Regiment, the fathers, mothers and children of the 78th were being evicted within a few miles of Dunrobin castle.'

"Contemplation of such ironies is one of the most perplexed and pathetic features of the Gaelic poetry of the 19th Century. Most of the 19th Century poets gloried in the deeds of the Highland soldiers, and most of them asked why such things were, but, not

having much of an insight into imperialism, they could give no answer. They could only utter the warning that the depopulation of the Highlands would sooner or later end the supply of Highland soldiers.'"

"The struggle of the Americans was similar to that of the Irish (home rule and self-determination). "

Am I missing something here? The struggle of some Scots is for self-determination too!!!

Scotland may have been in the Empire, it may have been one of the colonisers, and some may have benefitted, but that is nothing to be proud of. If Scots were full participants, so were many Americans and Irish too. In fact, Dr Johnson said of the 13 Colonies -

"How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?"

Scottish independence is partially about leaving our disgusting colonial past behind - both are colonists and colonised.

The double standards here are not Mr Salmond's. Unfortunately Jefferson ended up being an imperialist, and taking one of his slaves as a mistress, and making her pregnant. I think Jefferson's later career is often overlooked.

Alex Salmond, who is a political opportunist, has no right to ever quote Thomas Jefferson and equate his cause with that of the 13 Original colonies. The struggle of the Americans was similar to that of the Irish (home rule and self-determination).

Both Scotland AND England were the enemy of the Colonies in 1776, lets get that straight! Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, which considered themselves as separate countries banded together to defeat the British, NOT the English or the Scottish but all three: England, Scotland, and Wales.

The difference is that Scotland and England were happily married building empire here, there, and everywhere. Now that the empire ended, the weath is gone, and power is concentrated in London, Scotland wants to change the script, wash its hands from its bloodied and shameful history, and cast all the blame on England (i.e., act as if they were victims of England's incessant empire building; Scots were just bystanders and victims of those wicked English). But the truth is that Scotland loved empire, got rich off of empire, and benefit immensely. Now that things have gone pear-shaped, they want to rewrite history and bring up grievancies that are based on fantasy (Irish grievances are real on the other hand).

But most shockingly is that Mr. Salmond has really lost the plot when it comes to Thomas Jefferson: that unity builds strength which was the point of creating those United States and forming a federation (recognizing that each colony had distrinct traits).

The US did have a Civil War between 1860-65, but this is a route I DO NOT recommend for the UK (the South is sitll bitter that they lost the war; coincidentally, many Southern states have a version of the saltire embedded in their flags; draw your own conclusions).

There may be rivalry between both countries. And I am 100% positive that some Scots suffered mistreatment south of the border. But please don't confused one cause with the other. It's an insult to 300 million Americans.

I was reading one of Gore Vidal's essays on Jefferson earlier this year. Basically, what Vidal says was that in his second term, Jefferson went against much of what he stated/attempted in his first! He also claims that people remember TJ for his first term, rather than his second. An interesting idea, if we're going to ask "What would Thomas do?"

"Jefferson saw national self-interest in collective statehood. Welsh and Scottish nationalism eschews this."

Not completely true, a number of people in Scotland and Wales - particularly the latter, would like to see decentralised federal states. This isn't to be confused with the idea of a federal British Isles (although this has been proposed, and is almost being attempted through the Council of the Isles), but would mean that the two states would have devolution within them. Gwynfor Evans was a great advocate of this, in particular - and this idea has some currency with the people of the Bro Cymraeg or Welsh Wales, where they feel somewhat remote from Swansea and Cardiff.

"he has no right to recruit greatness to his project."

According to who? The other side does it all the time. Salmond is the only real Statesman (no pun intended) of contemporary Scottish politics these days (and I'm including Gordon Brown!)

What year is this? Is this 1988 or 2008? Scotland has home rule and self-determination! What the hell is Holyrood? A mirage? Wasn't that the point of devolution? To give each country within the UK its own government, home rule, and closer accountability? If all these so-called nationalist would put as much effort to fixing the UK than breaking it up for purely selfish reasons, everyone would be better off.

But instead everyone keeps going about as if we were in the 18th century -- and right on cue, you started quoting things that happened long ago and to be frank are irrelevant (I seriously doubt English peasants were kicking back in nice large homes, eating fabulous food, wearing fine clothes and taking lavish holidays while Highlanders or the Irish were being thrown off the land. I am sure there are countless tales of English peasants undergoing the same ordeal).

What I take issue with is Mr. Salmond going about acting as if the Scottish situation is akin to that in Bosnia-Hercegovina or Tibet. It's not! And Scotland's mess is of their own doing: voting Labour and the hard left at every turn, making victimhood part of the national character, refusing adapt to change while the world was moving on. The fact of the matter is that the UK did not forget about Scotland; the world did. You can't blame the UK or the English or the EU for this. How is it that certain parts of the UK thrive and certain parts stagnate?

But everyone is drinking from Mr. Salmond's trough. He picks issues and fights that he know he has no chance of winning. When he gets the slap-down from Westminster, he'll turn to his constituents and tell them that the reason his proposal didn't pass was because they are being oppressed.

I don't think that the break-up will bring any benefits to either of the four/five countries in the UK.

If you want to complain, then I would start with: why doesn't England and Wales have a parliament like Scotland's? Would a better solution be to form a federal system like in Canada or Australia? In essense, has everything been tried? Like a marriage, you should try to seek ways to stay together before taking the final step.

Why don't the nationalist try to solve that? Why don't the nationalist try to come up with positives ways to fix the imbalances rather than taking the selfish us-versus-them stance?

Lastly, if Scotland wants to move beyond its imperial past, then an apology to its former colonies for its role in the British Empire would be a start.