You never take aything Mel Gibson makes as historical fct. There great movies but as far as history goes there utter garbage. Enjoyable but garbage none the less.
Agree about the garbage

The Scots should be able to easilly crush Edward II and gain their independence as he is a total incompitant in everything except perhap architecture. In a way this was the fault of Longshanks. Longshanks was too strong willed, to dominant and domineering that his son had been totally dominated by his father and had no confidence in himself nor desire to accomplish anything like his father did.
Now, despite Edward II being an almost totally useless King, England is strong. The reforms carried out under the rule of Longshanks made England strong and those reforms could not be totally undone by the uselessness of his son. Under Edward II however the very reforms Longshanks brought in were used by the Barons and by Edward II's adulterous wife to take power from the King.
True. Edward II made such a mess of the Bannocburn campaign that its difficult not to see Scotland reasserting its de-facto independence even without formal rebellion.
Regardless of that England is too strong for Scotland to cripple. The best Robert the Bruce, the finest general in Britain after the death of the Longshanks, could do in OTL after he established Scottish Independence was raid some of the Northern English territories but could never gain enough stength to defeat the English totally in their own land let alone cripple them.
Largely agree. Some suggestions he seriously crippled English power and settlements in Ireland for quite a while and he did a hell of a lot of damage in parts of northern England but it was too big, populated and wealthy to be crippled. Unless you have someone else, say the French attacking the south successfully.
Longshanks legacy on Britain was in two thing:
1 - he brought about centuries of hatred between of the English by the Scots and the Welsh and started a tradition of hostility and war between those peoples, the Scots more than the Welsh.
Would have to disagree here. He made things worse in a number of ways in terms of relations but there was a long history of conflict between the three peoples since we came over from the continent and the Scots came over from Ireland. Both the Scots and Welsh attacked England when it was weak, such as after the Norman invasion and England, or leaders in the border areas often struck back hard when they could.
2 - he made England the strongest country in Britain during his lifetime, the first English King really to do so, and this in turn was built upon by future kings to make England the dominant power in Britain.
The 1st 'English' king to give it a lasting superiority since the Norman conquest weakened it. Other monarchs since, including William the Vile and Henry II for instances made Scotland a satallite but not reliably so. Edward nearly achieved this but made a few too many mistakes and ran out of time.
If Longshanks had be King of Scotland the roles of the two countries would have been reversed.
I don't know. He was a very capable military leader and highly motivated to concentrate power. [Partly due to the monarchy's period of vulnerability in Simon de Montford's time]. However even a divided England would have been too powerful to be nearly conquered by a Edward led Scotland. Even more to the point, given it had much less history of unity and national identity at the time, I doubt Edward as a Scot could have unified Scotland to any great degree. It is arguable after all that the Highlands were only really brought under central control by the reforms after the 1745 uprising. Much of this area was largely out of Edinburg's control for long after Edward's time.
Steve