King Edward I of England Lives Longer

Possibly not permanently but might occur. Or say bringing Lothian and neighbouring areas back into the English sphere, which would have a big impact on the development of Scotland. Also a weaker Scotland might not be able to drive the Norse from the northern territories and islands, at least not as quickly.

However the impact of Edward living a few more years would be greatly reduced unless you change/remove Edward II and his disasterous reign.

  Provided there is a competent and clear successor to Edward I. Although no Edward II does have the catch of no Edward III.  Alternatively if his father died shortly after his birth in 1312, but this doesn't greatly change his character.  This would have the added bonus for England that with competent leadership Bannockburn or its equilavlent could be a crushing defeat for the Scots.

His mother Isabella of France who died in 1358 i think, she did deposed him in OTL so she could be regent until the young Edward III comes to age to reign for himself.

  There was some criticism apparently because of her alleged spending and also ending [for the moment] the war with Scotland.  However in this scenario that latter may not happen as with the regency following on from Edward I's later death and his son, our Edward II, dying before him is there an equivalent of Bannockburn in 1314 and if so who wins?  With decent leadership the English should win any such battle and if Bruce was killed that would drastically change the situation.  In this case Isabella and her supporters might both continue the war against any Scottish resistance and also rule longer, possibly until Edward comes of age.

  Of course her son, who would be Edward II in TTL as his father never became king, is likely to have a much different upbringing and hence possibly character than our Edward III so he could be radically different as a person.  In fact with the POD of his grandfather lasting longer his genetic inheritance will have some differences.  Of course for instance if Isabella is pregnant when her husband dies and the child is a daughter then the succession is thrown into a fair bit of uncertainty as there will be a desire for a male monarch. 

  If it means an humiliating peace or one which gives up treaty or other assets that the nation believes belongs to it.  In such cases there is likely to be resentment.  Especially if say powerful individuals lost lands say that they had a claim on.

  Possibly but either way it could upset a lot of people.

  Doubt it as there weren't really professional forces at the time.  However a number of the nobles had estates both north and south of the border and lost the former as a result.  See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dupplin_Moor
for some details, although it only briefly mentioned the Disinherited as they were referred to.  Also others might have thought a continuation of the war gives them the chance to gain such lands. 

  Furthermore don't forget one impact of having primogeniture means that younger sons have no inheritance to their father's lands which means such younger sons of the nobility often looked to win new lands in war.  This was one reason for the rapid expansion of the Normans in the previous centuries and was a factor in this time.  Later there were other options, such as the church or assorted high privilege professions but at this point less so.

  Steve