I'm not sure what the Jacobite rebellion of Battle of Culloden are off the top of my head, those aren't taught in history classes in America, but I've always been taught starting from James I in 1603 when the same king ruled the two lands. Being a partnership doesn't require being one combined country, having the same head of state seems like pretty close relations.

But if unsuccessful civil wars are allowed to disrupt the unity of a nation, hell, America has only been a country for like 150 years, not 250. The American Civil War was a lot bloodier than the Battle of Culloden.

Best crash course into the history of Scotland if you don't have the time or patience for official history: "Tunes of War" by German heavy metal band Grave Digger:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunes_of_War

Quite why a German band would make a whole album paying tribute to the history of Scottland defeats my understanding but it's a good album and, in all seriousness, is a great way to get an idea about Scottish history if you don't have the time to read actual history books, or, I guess, wikipedia.

Say, this bit of lyrics is from "Culloden Muir":

  I walk alone through burning towns.
  My sword is in my hand. 
  But the battle has been lost.
  And there is nothing to defend. 
  At Culloden in seventeen forty six.
  Scotland's fate was sealed.

  ... 

  The rising was in vain.
  We were a people free and brave.
  Heroes stood tall.
  But history is merciless.
  Now we are doomed to fall.
  The battle of Culloden.
  The end of Scotland.

Gives you a bit of an idea, doesn't it?

Peter Watkins' Culloden (1964) is worth watching, not just because of its commentary on the battle but because it serves as a prescient commentary on modern media:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TW8bhB5oxQI

> I'm not sure what the Jacobite rebellion of Battle of Culloden are off the top of my head, those aren't taught in history classes in America

You are overgeneralizing, and in any case, that's not an excuse when the examples are pointed out and Wikipedia (for starters) exists.

I absolutely love that you jumped at that first sentence and had to criticize me without even reading the rest of my post. Because I went on to talk about it after I read the Wikipedia article. Go back and finish reading.

If sharing the same head of state is the criteria, then Canada and Australia (and several others) are still in a partnership with the United Kingdom. :P

Here's a great BBC series if you want to get up to speed on the issues involved:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00nz3b7