Ollaimh shouting in capitals doesn't improve your argument which is based on myths tempered by half truths - which the best myths always are.

Again people were moved off the land all over Britain as a whole and within Scotland itself. It was not restricted to the Highlands. Both the Highlands and the Southern Uplands, and even to a lesser extent the north-eastern Lowlands, now form a far smaller percentage of the Scottish population than they did in let's say the 18thC. There are now vast cities in central Scotland which did not exist in the 18thC. Where do you think their populations came from? Part of it was a movement from rural Scotland. In the Borders people moved off the land into planned communities (like Gavinton and Newcastleton) just as similar communities were set up on the coastal Highlands. Probably because proximity to markets etc the Border experiments were more successful than the schemes in the Highlands where the economy later collapsed. Despite that and despite the rise of Border mill towns etc Berwickshire still had an overall decline comparable with any mainland Highland county!

There were early instances of Highland Chiefs trying to sell clansmen off as slaves. Later chiefs often attempted to stop people emigrating. We all know that there was then people forced, and some even burned, out of their homes. No one is denying that or supporting it. It is plain wrong to blame 'the English' or Lowlanders for that though. I repeat it was a class issue. A small landed elite who more often than not were themselves Highlanders were responsible for what went on in their estates. No-one alive today, be it Highlander, Lowlander or Englishman is responsible and no-one alive today is a victim. So drop the chip.

And I'm sorry I won't have some Canadian lecture me about empire. We all know that western European countries built empires and it is something few would defend now. My direct paternal ancestor left the Highlands in the late 18thC and moved to the Lowlands where he married a local lass and they staid there. So your ancestors left Scotland and built a new country – but hey, it was built on land which had belonged to Native Canadians. Glass houses springs to mind.   

You've already showed your ignorance of Scottish history in your first post but go further in claiming that 'the Stuarts' supported religious tolerance. The facts don't stand up. Charles I caused massive convulsions within Scotland by his obsession with trying to force Anglicanism on a mostly unwilling Scotland. After the Restoration both Charles II and especially James VII (more so prior to his becoming king) suppressed and persecuted Presbyterians especially in southern Scotland. Best to go by what they did when in power rather than by what the said when out of power and trying to win back support. Also the idea that the Jacobites were opposing totalitarianism is plainly ludicrous. The Stuart Pretenders still clung to the idea of Divine Right. They claimed their accident of birth gave them the automatic right to absolute power in Britain. On the other hand the last Stuarts (ie William and Mary then Anne) and then the Hanovarian successors accepted the idea of constitutional monarchy. They may not have liked it, and it maybe had some way to go, but it was a big advance on the idea of Divine Right.

As to the rebellions themselves. As I said it is completely wrong to describe them as a Scottish versus English struggle. They were civil wars. Likewise within Scotland itself it was not a Highland versus Lowland struggle. The 1715 rebellion if anything was probably as much Lowland as Highland. Many of the Jacobites came from the Episcopalian north-eastern Lowlands and even recruitment was pretty successful in the Borders as well over the border in Northumberland. There were also plenty of Highlanders on the govt side. The 45 started off principally as a Highland affair but by the time of Cullloden a fair percentage of the army came from elsewhere. Charles was much less successful in getting English recruits than the 15 had been. Again in the 45 there were plenty of Highlanders on the govt side. It is simply biscuit tin history to suggest otherwise. There was severe repression after the 45 ( the govt had been relatively easy on the earlier rebellions for the times ) which again no-one nowadays would even try to support. However to somehow lay down the line that this directly caused the collapse of the Highland population is simply incorrect. The fact of the matter is that the population of the Highlands, despite emigration, rocketed after the 1750s and didn't hit a peak until about 1840 almost a full century after Culloden. Yes it can be said that events speeded up the change of attitude of the Highland landed elite from clan base ideas to a landlord standpoint – but even that process was already taking place in the decades prior to the 45. Especially so in the south-west Highlands.