Who succeeds Elizabeth, then?
(And did you actually consider pausing for breath at any point...try reading your question out exactly the way it's posted and see what it sounds like.)
Nothing about mediaeval to early modern Scotland is simple, too many competing factions with too much bad blood between them, and James VI only first among equals at best.
Resistance to the English just about is the unifying national myth, one James was playing down in expectation of the union of the crowns but which had in living memory been fed by Henry VIII's "rough wooing"- more like attempted rape.
Without bribery and corruption, or a common enemy, there is no rational reason to build bridges over the existing pool of bad blood between the two.
Scotland has been, and there would be no good reason not to be, anybody else's ready ally against the English, an exporter mainly of people, and more interested in Europe than the English.
How it plays out in the wake of Elizabeth not allowing James to succeed her (which could easily have happened- for instance, if they had actually met, James being the scruffy, shifty, unmonarchial object he usually was and Elizabeth having strong opinions as she did on how things ought to look) is going to depend on who does, but a period of sharp pointy unhappiness followed by fourteenth to sixteenth century business as usual seems not unlikely.