This is a very complicated question, and there will be much more to say, but it's not strictly true to suggest that there was no attempt to launch an armed struggle for Scottish independence in the past century.

I covered what can be known about what happened (and an extremely murky tale it is, as well) in an earlier post that you might like to review while you wait for fresh responses to your query:

Why did Fine Gael run a candidate in Inverness, Scotland, in the February 1974 and 1979 UK General elections? In which an apparently minor query turns out to pose some probing questions about the actions of the British security state in the mid-1970s....

As the moderator says, it's hard to answer counterfactual questions while adhering to the standards of good scholarship expected. What I can say, however, is that the Scottish and Welsh independence movements have had their own violent factions. The counterfactual part of the answer (which I'm not going to attempt) is why these didn't become mainstream and expand into open armed conflict - although it might be worth reading up on insurgency (and counter-insurgency) theory to develop an explanation. Mao Zedong's theory of "People's War" is well-discussed, and Frank Kitson's theory on how to counter it is freely available too.

In Wales (Cymru), the 1960s saw the formation of two different insurgent groups: the Mudiad Amddiffyn Cymru (Movement for the Defence of Wales, aka MAC) and the Byddin Rhyddid Cymru (Free Wales Army).

The growth of the Welsh independence movement in the late 20th century is usually explained in reference to the flooding of the Welsh-speaking community of the Capel Celyn in Snowdonia to create a reservoir serving North West England. While the people of Capel Celyn were compensated for their lost homes, the decision had been made without the consultation of anyone in Wales - nor did anyone in Wales have a meaningful and legal means of resisting it. MAC was formed in 1963 to carry out sabotage of the reservoir's construction. MAC conducted a bombing campaign until 1969, usually attacking infrastructure but at one point inadvertently injuring a child. As well as attacking the dam/reservoir at Tryweryn, they also attempted to disrupt the investiture of (now, king) Charles as Prince of Wales. MAC's leader, John Jenkins was arrested in November 1969 and sentenced to 10 years in prison. The Free Wales Army were much more paramilitary in style, claiming connections with the IRA and ETA, but were quickly infiltrated by undercover police officers (who took photos of their training exercises) and the core group were arrested and tried for public order offences in 1969.

The independence movement had a resurgence around the time of the (failed) 1979 devolution referenda, in both Wales and Scotland, and this sparked the formation of both Meibion Glyndwr (Sons of Glyndwr) and the Scottish National Liberation Army. Meibion Glyndwr carried out a wave of arson attacks against holiday homes owned by people living in England, destroying over 200 properties over the course of 14 years, peaking in 1988 with a series of letter bombs against Conservative politicians and estate agents (in US English: Realtors) in England selling land in Wales. In 1993 Sion Aubrey Roberts was arrested for the attacks and served 8 years, though he still maintains his innocence. In Scotland, SNLA also sent letter bombs to royals and politicians (for which Andrew McIntosh served 6 years) before descending into sending threatening letters and making hoax bomb threats - Adam Busby (and his son, also called Adam Busby) is apparently the leader, and both Busbys have served time for their threats.

I would argue that was probably because there was never the historical/nationalistic basis for it. One of the other comments talks in depth about the very very few terrorist groups that were in Welsh or Scottish independence movements so I’ll leave that be.

Firstly, the beginning of the troubles was based in anti-Catholic discrimination by the Protestants in Northern Ireland. The Catholics considered themselves indigenous whilst the Protestants weren’t so there was this view of fighting of the invading/colonising force. There was never the precedent for that in Wales (because they were mostly Protestant) or Scotland (because the ‘indigenous’ people were Protestant). So there wasn’t the sentiment of reclaiming a land that once was theirs, because the land still is theirs.

Secondly, there wasn’t widespread support for any sort of independence, the 1979 referendum on devolution for Scotland only got 51% of the votes - and that’s devolution, not anywhere close to independence. In fact, independence polling was at just over 10% in Scotland in 1979, and wasn’t even really a thought in Wales outside of very small groups - the 1979 devolution referendum in Wales had 80% voting against it.

Scotland and Wales (and Protestant Irish tbh) were happily part of Britain and the Empire and all the positives it brought for them. The Scots were overrepresented in the Empire. This might seem a bit of topic, but myths of Scotland being separate from this idea of Britishness and British imperialism are quite common atm. That along with pan-Celticism, which is a very modern nationalistic concept. I’m going into this to dispel any myths about Britishness outside of England.

Scotland had assisted in the invasion of Ireland and was the main force in the British colonisation of Ireland (hence Ulster Scots) and many Scots were viewed as the best allies the Northern Irish loyalists had. In one of the songs glorifying the UVF, the lyrics go:

“Our brothers in Scotland are ready to move;

They won’t let us down when the Fenians break though;

Battalions of brave men prepared to do battle for Ulster’s proud name;

They’re Simply the Best;

The Scottish Brethren in the UVF;

Better than anyone, any rebel in the IRA”

In no loyalist song I’ve found is England viewed like this fyi. It just goes to show the united British sentiment from Scotland, against Ireland. The modern (simplified) view of pan Celtic nationalism being widespread is very very recent, and even then ignores the common British identity in proudly Celtic nations.

In short, it wasn’t England the IRA were fighting, but Irish loyalists and British (including Scottish and Welsh) soldiers. British association was very very high in Scotland and Wales (and still is, just not to the same extent because of an increased nationalism in recent years).

Thirdly, the history is completely different. In short,

Ireland: invaded and colonised, majority Catholic religion so were discriminated against, oppressed, rebelled multiple times and were treated horrifically (this requires a whole answer in itself), had plantations, victims of a partly preventable famine, language suppression, and most importantly- were still victims of oppression in Northern Ireland.

Scotland: voluntarily joined the Union with England because they were broke from attempting to colonise in South America, then benefitted supremely.

Wales: was invaded and colonised, but by the Normans, so there was less of the thoughts about colonialism and a more view of Britishness. Also had seen a Welsh invasion of England in the 15th century (Tudors), so it was more seen as a tit for tat than colonialism.

So essentially, the histories are completely different, and the fact that Scots and Welsh weren’t suffering from oppression is a big point.

Fourthly, the rise of nationalism started in the 19th century - the same era of the Great Famine, Irish Catholic MPs not being allowed to stand and then being treated horribly, then afterwards the Easter rising etc etc

Nationalism is a modern concept, but relies heavily on a variety of things (romanticism, patriotism etc) but also very commonly the idea of a ‘shared enemy’, so you begin to see the rise of Irish nationalism which romanticises Irish rebels and views the British as the shared enemy specifically because of it coinciding with this same era as mentioned above.

Scottish and Welsh nationalism never had this, Scottish romanticism comes close with the highlanders, but that was about lowlanders vs highlanders so didn’t create a shared enemy as the ones romanticising it was lowlanders themselves.

They didn’t have this idea of a shared enemy of the English as a serious concept until relatively recently. Most were very happy with being X and British as an extension. Note the word ‘serious’, obviously ideas of an historical enemy existed, just not a shared current enemy. This later becomes the basis for more modern Scottish and Welsh nationalism (which follows modern nationalistic trends) which views historical enemies as the ‘shared enemy’.

The shared enemy for British nationalism was probably a mix of WW1 enemies and the Axis, mostly Nazism by the 50s onwards, but probably began with the shared enemy of ‘enemies of the empire’.

So in conclusion: no discrimination, no support for independence, idea of Britishness across the three nations, and the rise of the concept of nationalism beginning in the same period as heavy oppression of the Irish. This is a hard topic to answer, but this is my take on it.

. . . .

Bibliography:

Scotland and the British Empire, John MacKenzie and TM Devine

The Scottish Empire, Michel Fry

Making sense of the troubles, David McKittrick and ‎David McVea

Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, Benedict Anderson

Irish Freedom: The History of Nationalism in Ireland, Richard English

Scotland Now: A warning to the world

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/35-years-scottish-attitudes-towards-independence

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/RP97-113/RP97-113.pdf

Simply the Best, UVF (song)

Like others, I'm also not going to try to answer the counterfactual. But there are two things about nationalist political violence in Ireland that I think are at least relevant

The first is that, while there have been small violent factions in both Scottish and Welsh nationalism, Irish nationalism has a long and sustained tradition of paramilitarism and political violence. The Irish Volunteers, for instance, formed in 1778, when British troops went to North America to fight the rebellion there. There was concern about the possibility of a French invasion of Ireland in their absence, so the Volunteers formed as local militias. Though not a nationalist organisation by any means, they then took advantage of the absence of British troops and pressured the government to grant free trade between Ireland and Great Britain in 1779 and to grant legislative independence for Ireland in 1782 (ending the arrangement by which laws passed by the Irish Parliament had to be approved by Westminster). In 1779, for instance, they had marched in Dublin under the slogans of "Free Trade or this" (the "this" being their cannon), and "Free Trade or revolution".

In later years some members of the Belfast company of the Irish Volunteers formed the Society of United Irishmen along with other former Volunteers and associates from elsewhere in Ireland. They were inspired by liberal political ideals and the American revolution and sought an independent democratic Irish republic with equal rights for Protestants and Catholics (very radical ideas in Ireland at the time). The United Irishmen launched a rebellion in 1798, which was rapidly put down by the British and which ultimately led to Ireland's formal integration into the United Kingdom in 1801. While the Rebellion of 1798 was a failure, it did succeed in sparking something significant: The ideals of the United Irishmen and names like Wolfe Tone entered Irish nationalist mythology, popular ballads and rebel songs reference the rebellion, and it generally inspired Irish nationalists and republicans ever since.

The Young Irelander rebellion in 1848 came in the aftermath of the famine which depleted the population of Ireland by around a quarter through starvation or emigration. They had become frustrated with Daniel O'Connell's repeal movement, which had attempted to end the union with Great Britain and re-establish an independent Ireland through peaceful political means. O'Connell had opposed the United Irishmen's violence in 1798, had rejected violence throughout his career, and condemned the Young Irelanders. The Young Irelander rebellion also failed, and failed quickly, but again they would have a significant influence in the longer term both politically and in nationalist mythology.

Out of the failure of the Young Irelander rebellion grew two movements in particular. The first was a movement for land reform, which eventually grew into a major nationalist political cause in the later 19th Century which was taken up by the Irish Parliamentary Party and others. The second was the Irish Republican Brotherhood and its sister organisation in the US, the Fenian Brotherhood. The IRB - with fundraising from the Fenians - launched two rebellions of note: in 1867 and in 1916. Both of these lacked public support. Both were put down relatively easily, though there was some heavy fighting in Dublin in 1916. But the Easter Rising of 1916 would have an enormous impact. As I'll discuss in a bit, it transformed Irish politics and proved to be the catalyst for the armed independence movement that developed after 1918 and which had succeeded by 1922.

The IRB had also been a key player in the creation of a new Irish Volunteers in 1913, in reaction to creation of the the unionist Ulster Volunteers in 1912. John Redmond, the leader of the Irish Parliamentary Party - which, as the name suggests, was a political movement rather than a violent one, and which had previously sought land reform but now sought home rule - attempted but largely failed to gain some control over the Volunteers in 1914. By this point it had a sizeable membership, but it split in over whether to support the British war effort. Nearly 200,000 Volunteers left and called themselves National Volunteers, some of whom joined the British Army (the National Volunteers as an organisation dwindled more or less away). Of the remaining 15,000 or so Irish Volunteers, some participated in the 1916 rising.

The Volunteers as an organisation survived the Rising and by the late 1910s had been adopted as the forces of the Irish provisional government and had become known as the Irish Republican Army - the IRA. It was this organisation - the IRA - which successfully fought the British to independence in 1922. Some prominent IRA leaders during the war of independence - including Éamon de Valera, Michael Collins, and Cathal Brugha - had been members of the IRB and of the Volunteers and had taken part in the Easter Rising. The Irish name for the Volunteers was Óglaigh na hÉireann. This name was retained after the Volunteers became known as the IRA and is still officially used in Irish by its various successor organisations including the Republic of Ireland's national defence forces and all subsequent incarnations of the IRA, including those of the Irish Civil War and of the later Troubles in Northern Ireland.

The second thing about nationalist political violence in Ireland is that things changed after 1916. You will probably have noticed that every rebellion up to and including 1916 had failed (the 18th Century Irish Volunteers having succeeded through the threat of violence without actually resorting to it). So why did the IRA's rebellion succeed?

One reason is the British reaction to the Easter Rising, which sparked mass support for independence. Fourteen of the Rising's leaders were executed by firing squad - including James Connolly, who had to be strapped to a chair for the occasion due to his injuries - and then buried in a mass grave, and word spread of British atrocities elsewhere in Ireland. This radicalised Irish public opinion in favour of the rebels. At the 1918 general election, Sinn Fein for the first time took the vast majority of Irish seats in the Westminster Parliament (supplanting the Irish Parliamentary Party). Sinn Fein was founded by Arthur Griffith, who was a supporter of the Irish Parliamentary Party in his youth and had been inspired by the writings of certain Young Irelanders. Sinn Fein had also been infiltrated by the IRB and Griffith had himself previously been an IRB member. As an organisation it had not taken part in the Easter Rising, but the British government explicitly made the link between the party and the rising and they had become publicly known as the republican party. And indeed many Sinn Fein members had been members of the IRB and of the Irish Volunteers and some had taken part in the rising. Their MPs included de Valera (who had been one of the leaders of the 1916 rising but had escaped execution), Collins (who was associated with the leadership during the 1916 rising), Brugha (who was seriously injured in 1916), and many others who would go on to be important in the war of independence.

After Sinn Fein won the vast majority of Irish seats in Parliament in 1918, they announced that they would not sit in Westminster, but would instead form their own legislature - Dáil Éireann - which then declared independence and ratified the proclamation of the republic made at the outset of the Easter Rising in 1916. Dáil Éireann and the provisional government (with de Valera as its President, Brugha as its Defence Minister, and Collins as its Finance Minister) and the IRA (with de Valera as its President, Brugha as its Chief of Staff, and Collins as its Director of Intelligence and de facto leader) together pursued the war against the British to victory with widespread popular support in the 26 counties that gained independence.

Like I say: I'm not going to answer the counterfactual. But, I think, if you were going to try to answer the counterfactual then you would probably need to consider at least these two points: that by late 1910s Irish nationalism had a long and sustained tradition of political violence; and that the British response to the 1916 rising sparked mass support for republicanism. So the rebellion that led to independence for Ireland in 1922 didn't come out of nowhere. Irish nationalism as a political tradition had long been intertwined with political violence, and the movement which won independence itself grew directly out of that intertwined history. Neither Scotland nor Wales have such a long and sustained intertwining of nationalist politics with paramilitarism and political violence, nor have they had an event such as the British response to the Easter Rising that catalysed their population to broad support for radical republicanism.

Hey there,

Just to let you know, your question is fine, and we're letting it stand. However, you should be aware that questions framed as 'Why didn't X do Y' relatively often don't get an answer that meets our standards (in our experience as moderators). There are a few reasons for this. Firstly, it often can be difficult to prove the counterfactual: historians know much more about what happened than what might have happened. Secondly, 'why didn't X do Y' questions are sometimes phrased in an ahistorical way. It's worth remembering that people in the past couldn't see into the future, and they generally didn't have all the information we now have about their situations; things that look obvious now didn't necessarily look that way at the time.

If you end up not getting a response after a day or two, consider asking a new question focusing instead on why what happened did happen (rather than why what didn't happen didn't happen) - this kind of question is more likely to get a response in our experience. Hope this helps!