[WillowTheWhisp]

The trouble with history is that all we know is what someone else has written and in most cases the person who made the record will have had their own bias - it's rare for others to delve deeper in an attempt to look for alternatve views.

I was attracted to history purely because of this when a teacher pointed out to me (at age 10) that what he was teaching us was not necessarly fact but merely perceived opinion. We were doing the Wars of the Roses at the time and I was inspired to find out as much as I could on the subject from as many different sources as possible, something which stayed with me for years and resulted in my joining the Richard III society and having a pretty poor opinion of Shakespeare.

However, as to the original question - when it comes down to England and Scotland, considering it was a Scottish king who came to the English throne how come it isn't England wanting independance from Scotland subsequently?

Being of partly Irish descent I suppose I naturally tend to come down with the Irish side for the sympathy/empathy there. (But N.I. is an entirely different kettle of ball game if I may borrow a phrase from Keith Waterhouse.)

Back to kitchen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>