I support the general sentiment here. It's good optics to rally behind a little Scottish girl who fought back against a known brown immigrant rapist that was following them around by brandishing a small knife and hand axe. She didn't even know how to use them, she just wanted to be left alone. That's the state of our country now.

But the Boudica story (which isn't Scottish) always struck me as a weird thing to rally around. I know why - because it's an early example of a woman being in charge, so 20th century liberals love it in attempt to overplay the importance of women.

And I guess the idea of resisting invasion is a good one. But they lost really badly.

The actual Boudica story for anyone who doesn't know it:
>Romans made an agreement with Celtic tribe in what is now East Anglia
>They refused to disarm but Romans agreed they could be independent if they agreed to be a client state
>when the king died he left his kingdom to Rome, and his daughters
>Romans invaded, flogged Boudica and raped her young daughters
>She wasn't happy about it, and invaded Roman territory in England
>Romans were distracted with uprisings elsewhere and couldn't really fight back at that moment so just had to reatreat
>Romans lost a lot of people and had to regroup
>Romans used their superior tactics to totally defeat the Britons, despite being outnumbered
>Everyone involved in the uprising was killed, including all the women, even the animals. Boudica probably killed herself to avoid being raped and killed in a more brutal manner

There are far better stories of women leading the fight in English history, such as Aethelflaed, but she was English (Anglo-Saxon) rather than Celtic Briton.