Your ignorance of Scottish and UK history is embarrassing. The Scots were leading figures in governance of the British Empire, forming a disproportionate number of administrators, governors and military leaders. This is a well known fact of any atudent of British imperial history. Scotland were probably the primary beneficiaries of both the Union and the economic opportunities of the Empire. In fact, the founding father Thomas Jefferson was forced to delete a rant against the “Scotch” in the declaration of independence because of his hatred of both the Glaswegian tobacco barons and the Highland soldiers sent by the British to quell the rebellion, whom he viewed as alien and foreign with no right to be sent against the colonists who regarded themselves at that time as Englishmen with all the rights that implied in the political discourse of the time.
Please don’t ad hominum me.
You continue to make my point. Leaders of ENGLISH imperial history is replete with numbers of Scots as administrators and military leaders.
The ‘empire’ also used Indian military for years.
Have you considered the Orange had to rely on English support due to minority status in Ireland?
Sins is correct - the Scots were over-represented in the colonial effort. They were never exploited to the levels of the Irish UNTIL after the empire collapsed. Since the 1950s, the role of Scotland has decayed due to over-centralization in Westminster.
Note that this is not only a Scottish problem - even northern england resents the over-emphasis on Greater London. It was so bad that in the 1980s even local issues were directed from Westminster - watch “Yes Minster” to get an inkling :) - btw, that’s a plug for Yes Minster - the smartest serial I’ve ever seen. and one of the reasons I was an Anglophile