This account is still propagating myth, misinformation, and down-right lies - then whining when inevitably blocked for its behaviour. As ever it conflates two entirely different questions: participation of individuals in an empire and constitutional subordination to it. Ireland also supplied imperial soldiers, administrators, politicians and beneficiaries. That didn't make Ireland any less subject to colonial rule. Indeed, the Irish Parliament itself voted for incorporating Union in 1800. Does that make Ireland's incorporation voluntary too? The participation of Scots in Anglo-British imperialism, however extensive, clearly doesn't establish the legitimacy of Scotland's 1707 annexation. Scotland didn't "willingly vote" for 'Union'. The sovereign Community of the Realm was never consulted. A delegated Parliament voted under the pressure of England's Alien Act, economic coercion, military threat and political patronage, against widespread popular opposition. As for the Darien bailout myth, it plays the usual trick of confusing the financial losses of private investors with the bankruptcy of a sovereign state. Scotland had no comparable funded national debt to England's, although it had public liabilities. Article XV of the Treaty expressly established the £398,085 10s Equivalent because Scotland was being made liable, through taxation, to contribute towards England's pre-existing national debt. Much of the money that was paid in specie - most of it wasn't, and what was was borrowed, adding to Scotland's post-1707 liabilities - was then allocated to compensating shareholders in the Company of Scotland. That's a financial settlement benefiting investors, not evidence that Scotland was bankrupt or that England had rescued it from insolvency. Most importantly, it entirely bypasses the constitutional question: what authority did the Scottish Parliament possess to alienate sovereignty vested in the Community of the Realm? The participation of sections of Scotland's elite in British imperialism doesn't answer that question, and doesn't retrospectively legitimise 1707. Certainly every Non-Self-Governing territory has its collaberators, as ably attested here - unless the account is propagating half-baked colonial myth and misinformation from the colonial metropole itself?