Actually, I would prefer Walesh's bid for indepence. It will well be an irony for the Prince, what-his-name, charles, charlie, charters, or whatever.

With the name and the avatar, I think I recognize that poster.  Welcome to IAP 2.0 Oz.

Is there some confusion here? The English did invade and conquer part of Scotland at one point, and yes of course many Scots were murdered, just as many English people were murdered or taken as slaves when Scots invaded or raided England, as also happened in that period many times, as you'd expect with any pair of neighbouring medieval kingdoms. The land England gained when they conquered Scotland (under Edward I... who spoke French as his first language, as he was a Norman, and the Duke of Aquitaine in France) they lost later. In fact the border moved up and down several times during this period.
The formation of Britain as it is today was not due to England conquering Scotland. It was because the King of Scotland became King of England as well. Many Englishmen saw it as a case of Scotland conquering England (which was a bit silly really, but anyway). Neither the Scots nor the English were happy with this.
Over time, since the monarch of Britain was in London, and later the parliaments were merged and put in London, so the power of the Scottish nobility declined while that of the English nobility rose relatively. Many English nobles bought land in Scotland, and ejected the locals to instead graze sheep, causing great suffering. This happened all over Britain, but it was much worse in Scotland than anywhere else.
This is, not, hardly "the murder of many thousands of Scots".
The Union of Scotland and England has been, historically, very much in the interest of England and not of Scotland. But it is ridiculous, and shows a severe lack of historical understanding, to present the Union as a case of one country brutally conquering another, because that's not what created the union. It was simply that the King of Scotland (James VI) became King of England (James I) and after a while the Monarchy decided it would be easier to control the two countries if they were instead one country. It's the same as with Spain, which was originally several countries, but these ended up with the same monarch.

As to Wales (where I live), this was a case of coming into England through simply being conquered (by the aforementioned Norman Edward I). Wales hasn't really had any problems with being ruled as part of England that the English people didn't also suffer, unlike the Scottish Highland Clearances, which is probably why there is less appetite for independance here. Another significant thing is that they didn't suffer under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher like the Scottish did (a reason why support for Scottish independance was much higher in the 90s and now than it was in the 70s).
You say the Welsh and Irish have wanted to be free of the English for centuries, for the Welsh that isn't true. There have been no rebellions for 600 years. In the 60s there was some unrest, but that was mainly because English people were buying holiday homes in Wales and pricing out the locals, which happens all over England in the countryside as well. Some Welsh people would like to be independant it's true, but most wouldn't. That's why Plaid Cymru, the Welsh nationalists, is not a very big party, and isn't even advocating independance yet, but rather only increased autonomy in government policy.

With Ireland of course, the Irish have wanted to be free, as they've been the most brutally oppressed of anywhere in Britain, and that's why they fought a rebellion, and gained independance for most of Ireland.

I think I can sort of answer both in one reply if I may?

Scotland was a country and is a country and yet is being ruled by another country. To me that is anathema. Scotland, Wales and Ireland - ALL of Ireland - have the right to be independent of the rule of another country because they were countries before they fell under the control of a third country.

The Basque "Region" - I note they have started to call it a country now even though it isn't - never was another country. It is part of a country and separating out is also anathema to me. The Basque terrorists - or separatists as they fashion themselves, ignoring the bombings they undertake to terrorize, are only miffed because they are not in total control. Tough!

I feel the same way about Quebec. Quebec is part of Canada and the Quebec terrorists - or now, separatists (not much in the way of bombing so I can cut them some slack in the "name" department) - have no right to separate from Canada simply because the land isn't theirs...it belongs to the people of Canada. But that was the fault of the British who, after defeating the French, instead of doing what other countries of the time might have done and eliminating them altogether, allowed the French to stay to help build Canada...and they did.

Actually, during the 80's I accepted the separation of the French if they wanted, but there had to be restrictions. For example, since the St. Lawrence Seaway is an integral and very important part of Canada, they of course could not have or live within say 500 miles of the St Lawrence Seaway. If they wanted to "separate" they would have to move part and parcel away from that part of Canada so they could be independent. They of course could also not have any control over the electricity network in Quebec that feeds the N. E. part of the States as that belongs to Canada. They could of course negotiate fees for buying electricity from Canada, but they would need to be far enough away from the existing power stations so that a now "foreign" country could not damage that Canadian network.

Ridiculous of course, and it was intended to be.

A country that historically was a country wants to break free from the control of another country, the people in that country should have that right; but when just a group of people that want to be in control of the whole, and are pouting because they will never be in control of the whole, then try and take something away from the whole so those pouting can feel like they are now somebody...to me that is just wrong.

The Scots can become independent any time they want.  They just need to gain an SNP majority in the Scottish parliament and vote in a referendum for independence.

Simple as.

The difference is clear though. Tibet never was a country. It was always part of China and was so even before it finally got a name in the 700's CE.

Scotland was a country.

Part of a country does not have the right to separate, but a country being controlled by a third party country, does.

Not that I'm advocating a separation by Hawaii or anything, but they should also have the right.

Sigh.  Scotland "was" a country and is "ruled by another country"?

This is inaccurate.  Scotland has always retained the status of country.  The UK union was an agreement which suited Scotland at that time.  It no longer does, so many of us wish to dissolve it.

As a Scot, I assure you Scotland is not ruled by another country.  The union is pretty fairly weighted to ensure that Scotland has input to decision-making and at this time has more control over local matters than England has over English local matters.

As Oz mentioned, the first monarch to rule over both Scotland and England was Scottish.  There was no conquering about it.

It should also be noted that the last Prime Minister was a Scot (Tony Blair) and the current Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, is also Scottish.  Many of his government ministers are Scots and objectively it could be said that the Scots rule England.

I would not say that though

A referendum might be a good thing for people in Scotland, they could debate if they want to still be a part of the UK and lay the issue to rest.  It would be a sad day for me if Scotland was no longer a part of the Uk but even so if I think it wont happen people in Scotland have a right to determination this for themselves and to be able to state such things openly.  Even so I find it unlikely that there will be a referendum, as sixty percent of Scotland's parliamentarians, seem to oppose independence.