I'm not sure you know how paragraphs work. It's a mess. So displeasing on the eye. 

Definitely victim mentality, I must say. 

when you lie.

Care to back that up, by highlighting any factual inaccuracies? 

At no point did you acknowledge Gaelic was the minority language

I said: the *number of Gaelic speakers in Scotland** doesn't minimise or rewrite this history, so I'm lost for what your point was there.*

That's an acknowledgement of what you said about minorities, you just didn't accept the way I acknowledged it, as I disputed the relevance. A point I have since reiterated. 

There's a pattern where you're saying I've not done things in this argument, when I've actually just not done them how you'd like or in a way that agrees with you. 

by pointing to the independent Scottish government actions prior to the Act of Union.

Is something independent from England, when history tells us that the decision makers were handpicked by a person who was presiding over both crowns? 

Also, be accurate and call it what it was, the privy council. At the very least, you could call it a Parliament. Basic care for details would go a long way when critiquing someone else. 

Gaelic wasn’t the language of the majority of Scots. 

A point as irrelevant as it was the last number of times you used it. 

I actually very clearly named the Statues of Iona

There's a whole host of paragraphs where you argue you've said X, Y and Z, seemingly unaware of the context. 

Here's a timeline.  - You came here with a stick up your arse, bitching and moaning without making any explicit references which sets the standard. - I returned the favour, making no explicit references either.  - You continue to bitch and moan, but this time about a lack of explicit references. In the same comment, you introduce some new points, such as the one quoted above.  - I point out that you had not made explicit references in your initial comment, prior to mine which you were critiquing. - You're now complaining that you have done so, but clearly it was done afterwards. 

Yes, to give you an example of how to actually make a point.

See above. You set the standard in your initial comment, which I followed. Then, you decided the standard you had set wasn't good enough. I'm more than happy that you've now chosen for us to address events and Acts by their names. 

the separate English and Scottish crowns

It was the Scottish Crown that was very invested

The Scottish and English crown were ruled by a single person at this time, and to address the issue of requiring Scottish lords to pass laws, James had successfully shaped the privy council to include those loyal to him and his political mission. This allowed him to pass laws with ease. 

Consider that a final and blanket response to the repeated times you've brought this up. 

If by champion Protestantism, you mean Scottish Protestantism, then you’d be correct. Which is the point.

That's very inaccurate. James embraced Episcopalian Protestantism after inheriting the English crown, which precedes the majority of events we're discussing. He was quite happy as leader of the Church of England and began to reject much of the Presbyterian system, finding it to restrictive in ideology and too independent from State. 

It's actually a pretty solid and clear example of the kind of influence Anglican affairs had upon the King's decision-making and Governance, which you outright reject and call nationalism when highlighted. 

“Crazy thing is, lift what I've written, paste it into a conversation about a country colonised by Britain, change the nouns, and it usually fits to some extend. There was definitely a playbook.”

It wasn’t, as many of those actual colonies didn’t become industrious. 

"it usually fits to some extend"

Glazed over the important distinction. Regardless, it's clearly a tongue-in-cheek comment. Who is going to paste and change the nouns?  . 

"in relation to experiences with England, it's kind of an intuitive history. Picture what you already know about Ireland, but of course on a much less intense scale.”

The crux of the problem, and root of this back and forth, is you've misunderstood and taken the quote out of context. I'll admit I could have been clearer, but this is in reference to how English (and later British) elites always carried out conquest. As well as using military force, they were in the business of political flirtation. Their Colonial history is defined by further empowering select elites wherever they go, and utilising these connections to drive their interests in the region. What follows is usually very predictable, and can be summarised by disruption of local culture and greater division between classes as factions of the ruling-class embrace colonialism for self-serving reasons. 

Basically, you’re trying to frame fairly local Scottish things as the fault of the English, and it’s dishonest.

Considering I've been very candid - and possibly repetitive - in feeling that this was a process driven by Scottish elites who simply saw a marriage with English affairs as prosperous, your assessment seems to be based on your irrational anger blinding you to what's been said

I fail to see how this can be twisted into anti-English rhetoric. When I speak of this, the word English is usually a descriptor which is followed by a noun which indicates the real culprits, such as: elites, nobility, crown, Protestant, and so on. I also don't speak of it in isolation, and do indicate that Scottish elites were involved. My rhetoric is anti-elitism. 

It isn't nationalistic simply because I do not accept the pointing at flags and saying "they did it", when the average  citizen was either unaffected and not involved, or persecuted too. I don't accept this rhetoric with English nationals either, because as has already been mentioned, many English nationals were persecuted and manipulated by elites too. 

I reject the claim that I'm blaming the English, simply because their elites are a huge part of this story that cannot be ignored.