Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Religion

muriel_volestrangler

(102,627 posts)

21. A moment ago, you wrote 'to say the English "allowed and encouraged" ignores reality'

Reply to guillaumeb (Reply #18)

Sat Apr 20, 2019, 03:14 AM

Apr 2019

now you're using the same verb.

I think the Wikipedia article you linked to shows that my point that England did not force Scots to go to Ireland is correct. "James had been King of Scotland before he also became King of England and needed to reward his subjects in Scotland with land in Ulster to assure them they were not being neglected now that he had moved his court to London. In addition, long-standing contact and settlement between Ulster and the west of Scotland meant that Scottish participation was a practical necessity."

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

23 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Glasgow re-routes Protestant order's Easter march to avoid Catholic churches [View all] trotsky Apr 2019 OP

Ecumenism? Not hardly. MineralMan Apr 2019 #1

The English transplanted the Irish and the Scots guillaumeb Apr 2019 #2

Over the years, several people have told me that colonial English "divide and conquer" struggle4progress Apr 2019 #3

And the world is still dealing with those scars. guillaumeb Apr 2019 #5

I figured somehow you'd loop China into this. trotsky Apr 2019 #4

Recognizing historical reality is not a logical error. guillaumeb Apr 2019 #6

But it is a logical fallacy. trotsky Apr 2019 #7

No, you are incorrectly using the term. eom guillaumeb Apr 2019 #8

No, you are. n/t trotsky Apr 2019 #9

Most of the immigration from Scotland was from before the Act of Union in 1707 muriel_volestrangler Apr 2019 #10

Shhhh don't spoil the party... nt uriel1972 Apr 2019 #11

To say the English "allowed and encouraged" ignores reality. guillaumeb Apr 2019 #12

If you mean the clearences of the Highlands... uriel1972 Apr 2019 #13

No, the 1609 plantation: guillaumeb Apr 2019 #15

Did anyone else spot the glaring error? uriel1972 Apr 2019 #19

I did not spot it. guillaumeb Apr 2019 #20

James VI and I used the term, and he is important in that decision muriel_volestrangler Apr 2019 #22

For nearly all of the 17th century, the English were not in charge of Scotland muriel_volestrangler Apr 2019 #14

See #15, and what began in 1609. guillaumeb Apr 2019 #16

Can't blame the English for what happened under a Scot's King... uriel1972 Apr 2019 #17

True, but the English allowed the transplantation. guillaumeb Apr 2019 #18

A moment ago, you wrote 'to say the English "allowed and encouraged" ignores reality' muriel_volestrangler Apr 2019 #21

Marching with banners is hostile, aggressive, and militaristic. lindysalsagal Apr 2019 #23