Did the Scots consent to the execution of Charles I and the ascension to the throne of his son, Charles II?

Okay, let's delve into why the Scots didn't agree with the execution of Charles I and the subsequent ascension of Charles II. To understand this, we need to remember the complex relationship between Scotland and England in the 17th century. Charles I, although King of both England and Scotland, had a particularly rocky relationship with the Scots, largely due to his attempts to impose religious reforms that mirrored the Church of England. This led to the Bishops' Wars in 1639 and 1640, where the Scots rebelled against his religious policies. When Charles I was eventually executed in 1649 by the English Parliament, the Scots were horrified. They hadn't consented to his trial or execution. In fact, they still believed in the monarchy. So, rather than accepting the English Parliament's decision, the Scots declared Charles I's son, Charles II, as their king. This is a key point: they saw him as the rightful heir, unlike the English Parliament at the time. This act of defiance ultimately led to further conflict, including battles between the Scots and the English under Oliver Cromwell. So, while it might be tempting to think the Scots simply went along with whatever England did, they actually took a very different stance, proclaiming Charles II as their king in opposition to the English Parliament.