|
|
Post by thomas on May 14, 2023 13:54:50 GMT
not true. Northern ireland , which is part of the uk got to de facto remain in the eu. Its a silly argument to keep reashing this point sandy after boris and sunks brexit protocol betrayal.
But england wasnt , and was never likely to have been.
on ONE occasion (1964) Scottish MPs have turned what would have been a Conservative government into a Labour one. The Tory majority without Scottish votes would have been just one MP (280 vs 279), and as such useless in practice. The Labour government, with an almost equally feeble majority of 4, lasted just 18 months and a Tory one would probably have collapsed even faster.
which means that for 76 of the last 78 years, Scottish MPs as an entity have had no practical influence over the composition of the UK government. That is going to be even harder to influence with the further reduction of scottish mps.
The point as always is that the Union resulted in Scotland deciding what government England had. That is just a plain fact. It is what Unions are about winning and losing but expecting to be winning more often. Scottish MPs have the same level of influence as any MP, what you want is Scottish MPs to be only interested in Scotland instead of the UK. again you talk contrary to reality. Once in a century scotland has influenced the uk government. How many times has it been the reverse?
Simple soultion. End the union . Then neither of us can dictate what the other has for government.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 14, 2023 14:01:20 GMT
ok sandy , you have already told me this in your opinion a number of times . Please prove it?
The economy in scotland fell off a cliff for the rest of the 18th century. Could you please provide a link showing what you claim?
I have quoted three authors who have actually said it throughout their written works. As regards the economy I also refer to Herman and Ferguson. Herman in particular says, " By the 1730s the Scottish economy had turned the corner and by 1755 exports had doubled" never heard of herman and ferguson. Every single book i have written by unionist and nationalist historian give the same picture of the failing economy for the majority of the 18th century.
Things were that bad economically by 1711 , lord seafield had produced the first home rule bill .Lord seafield was originally a prime supporter of the union in 1707.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on May 14, 2023 14:01:36 GMT
I thought they were talking about Sunak.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 14, 2023 14:04:23 GMT
i think we had this convsersation before monte , and in my view orginally whiskey at some point was probably brought over to these islands by the celts in antiquity.
Definelty modern scottish whiskey is a thing though..
As a registered "Geographical Indication" (GI) in many overseas markets including the EU, Scotch Whisky is protected from misuse, imitation, evocation and any other practice liable to mislead consumers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on May 14, 2023 14:11:15 GMT
i think we had this convsersation before monte , and in my view orginally whiskey at some point was probably brought over to these islands by the celts in antiquity.
Definelty modern scottish whiskey is a thing though..
As a registered "Geographical Indication" (GI) in many overseas markets including the EU, Scotch Whisky is protected from misuse, imitation, evocation and any other practice liable to mislead consumers.
It's your use of an 'e' for scotch whisky that I'm questioning. Not whether scotch exists. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 14, 2023 14:11:38 GMT
ok sandy , you have already told me this in your opinion a number of times . Please prove it?
The economy in scotland fell off a cliff for the rest of the 18th century. Could you please provide a link showing what you claim?
We all know the place of the Tobacco Lords from the 1720s where they held 15% of the trade and within 25 years had control of the majority. in 1720 , scotland was sitting under british military occupation , with many of the southern towns rioting due to the new malt tax levied by the british. General wade himself was appointed lord commander over the british forces in scotland in 1725 to keep us in line.
The idea we were a happy booming economy withing the largesse of the british state really is an alternative reality when you consider the history of the 18th century in scotland.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 14, 2023 14:15:05 GMT
i think we had this convsersation before monte , and in my view orginally whiskey at some point was probably brought over to these islands by the celts in antiquity.
Definelty modern scottish whiskey is a thing though..
As a registered "Geographical Indication" (GI) in many overseas markets including the EU, Scotch Whisky is protected from misuse, imitation, evocation and any other practice liable to mislead consumers.
It's your use of an 'e' for scotch whisky that I'm questioning. Not whether scotch exists. old argument isnt it monte. How its spelled in english isnt relevant , and merely a tall tale for tourists .
The correct scottish spelling is uisge beatha if we want to be totally correct. 
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 14, 2023 14:23:49 GMT
The point as always is that the Union resulted in Scotland deciding what government England had. That is just a plain fact. It is what Unions are about winning and losing but expecting to be winning more often. Scottish MPs have the same level of influence as any MP, what you want is Scottish MPs to be only interested in Scotland instead of the UK. again you talk contrary to reality. Once in a century scotland has influenced the uk government. How many times has it been the reverse?
Simple soultion. End the union . Then neither of us can dictate what the other has for government.
Scotland always influences the UK government through the size of the majority. I gave an example where at one time Scottish votes imposed on England that which England had not voted for. I have no recall of England complaining. It is not a matter of dictating it is a matter of influencing, no different to an EU membership which is always a strange one for Nationalists to support. In a European Union Scotland's influence would be tiny and dictats would be frequent. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 14, 2023 14:25:29 GMT
I thought they were talking about Sunak. sorry fairsociety just caught this . naughty .
I think many tories would gladly send him over to india from what im reading .
Not a happy camp at the minute. We have rees mogg allegedly leading the charge against sunak , while at the same time saying the tories cant possibly change leaders yet again.
At the rate things are going iwould be suprised if sunak last till the next election .The polls are awfull the economy dire , and tory mps getting increasingly edgy.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 14, 2023 14:32:34 GMT
again you talk contrary to reality. Once in a century scotland has influenced the uk government. How many times has it been the reverse?
Simple soultion. End the union . Then neither of us can dictate what the other has for government.
Scotland always influences the UK government through the size of the majority. I gave an example where at one time Scottish votes imposed on England that which England had not voted for. I have no recall of England complaining. It is not a matter of dictating it is a matter of influencing, no different to an EU membership which is always a strange one for Nationalists to support. In a European Union Scotland's influence would be tiny and dictats would be frequent. You are not being truthfull here sandy. We have already shown over the last century england gets the government england votes for , with one exception , 1964.
prove it then?
well we are complaining . Having brexit foisted on us despite our 62 % remain while northern ireland got to stay is laughable. And no comparison the damage in our economy due to englands brexit , and what happened in 1964 where the tories would have only managed one more mp without scottish votes for labour.
your ignorance shows yet again. You talk about scottish history ,what little you know anyway , and dont know scotland is and always has been a pro european country , with 700 years of french citizenship for example , and our biggest historical trading partners over the centuries being europe?
Not sure whats strange about it. Its more strange you arent aware of the strength of pro european feelin in scotland.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2023 14:33:30 GMT
We all know the place of the Tobacco Lords from the 1720s where they held 15% of the trade and within 25 years had control of the majority. in 1720 , scotland was sitting under british military occupation , with many of the southern towns rioting due to the new malt tax levied by the british. General wade himself was appointed lord commander over the british forces in scotland in 1725 to keep us in line.
The idea we were a happy booming economy withing the largesse of the british state really is an alternative reality when you consider the history of the 18th century in scotland.
It is indeed worth noting that the vast majority of Scottish people were never consented over the Act of Union. Though it is worth also pointing out that only a tiny percentage of the English people had a say in anything either. This is an area where you are likely to know far more than me, so correct any inaccuracies by all means. But I believe elements of the Scottish elites were bribed to agree to the union. They took English money to sell their country down the river. And enough Scots were unhappy enough about it that they took part in two major armed rebellions with armies in the field, and were only finally crushed with great brutality in the battle of Cullodden in 1746 after scaring the hell out of the English the previous year. Survivors of the battle were hunted down as fugitives, the Highland clans were forcibly broken up and an oppressive military occupation was imposed. The Scots were held down by force, whilst landlords were encouraged to undertake farming changes that made the surviving clan members increasingly homeless. Many left for America. The bullshit we are taught in history in England....or at least were 40 years ago when I was at school...about the peoples of England and Scotland coming together in mutual friendliness with a happy outcome for both was just propaganda masquerading as history. Many Scots as you say were up in arms about it, whilst in all likelihood most of the English people barely cared either way in the days when for most a journey to the next village was a major adventure. It happened only because the ruling elites in both countries wanted it, the Scottish ones simply because of the bribes they were paid to sell their nation down the river. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 14, 2023 14:34:39 GMT
I have quoted three authors who have actually said it throughout their written works. As regards the economy I also refer to Herman and Ferguson. Herman in particular says, " By the 1730s the Scottish economy had turned the corner and by 1755 exports had doubled" never heard of herman and ferguson. Every single book i have written by unionist and nationalist historian give the same picture of the failing economy for the majority of the 18th century.
Things were that bad economically by 1711 , lord seafield had produced the first home rule bill .Lord seafield was originally a prime supporter of the union in 1707.
Then you need to expand your horizons. www.theguardian.com/books/2003/jan/25/digestedreadTom Devine does not he states as I quoted that benefits were visible by 1740. Herman was not a Scot but gives a detailed history of the Scottish Enlightenment and its effects on Scotland, on England and on teh Empire.. His particular point is that Union released thinkers to think instead of politicise. The immediate effect of Union was indeed negative on an already fragile economy but overall the effect was beneficial by mid century. That seems to be the consensus and by the 19th century the economy was booming. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on May 14, 2023 14:37:15 GMT
I thought they were talking about Sunak. sorry fairsociety just caught this . naughty .
I think many tories would gladly send him over to india from what im reading .
Not a happy camp at the minute. We have rees mogg allegedly leading the charge against sunak , while at the same time saying the tories cant possibly change leaders yet again.
At the rate things are going iwould be suprised if sunak last till the next election .The polls are awfull the economy dire , and tory mps getting increasingly edgy.
It was a bit naught lol
To be fair he's done well getting to the top in his profession, he did start more or less from the bottom and worked his way up, unlike some who are given jobs out of status and 'who they know'.
I think he could be a bit of a fall guy, not sure what's happening in the Tory party, it's like they keep electing leaders just so they can take the fall.
All I can say, if they boot Sunak out, the Tories have just committed political suicide
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 14, 2023 14:41:59 GMT
in 1720 , scotland was sitting under british military occupation , with many of the southern towns rioting due to the new malt tax levied by the british. General wade himself was appointed lord commander over the british forces in scotland in 1725 to keep us in line.
The idea we were a happy booming economy withing the largesse of the british state really is an alternative reality when you consider the history of the 18th century in scotland.
It is indeed worth noting that the vast majority of Scottish people were never consented over the Act of Union. Though it is worth also pointing out that only a tiny percentage of the English people had a say in anything either. fully aware of that steve. We arent apportioning blame onto anyone for what happend but the scottish and english elite.
They were steve. Burns wrote the famous parcel of rogues poem mocking them , but as i said up the thread , by 1711 , individuals like lord seafield , one who accepted bribes , knew scotland had been sold a pup and proposed home rule bill which was voted down.
apparently the english mps cried to the scots mps , have we not bought you and the right to tax you?
They did. There was on old website that recounted who took what bribes , and what it was worth in todays terms if i can find it , but in return ,the english saddled scotland with a large amount of englands debt , which more than compensated the bribes they had paid.
totally agree. But whatever the history its clear the union as it stands is once more coming to an end.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 14, 2023 14:46:20 GMT
Scotland always influences the UK government through the size of the majority. I gave an example where at one time Scottish votes imposed on England that which England had not voted for. I have no recall of England complaining. It is not a matter of dictating it is a matter of influencing, no different to an EU membership which is always a strange one for Nationalists to support. In a European Union Scotland's influence would be tiny and dictats would be frequent. You are not being truthfull here sandy. We have already shown over the last century england gets the government england votes for , with one exception , 1964.
prove it then?
well we are complaining . Having brexit foisted on us despite our 62 % remain while northern ireland got to stay is laughable. And no comparison the damage in our economy due to englands brexit , and what happened in 1964 where the tories would have only managed one more mp without scottish votes for labour.
your ignorance shows yet again. You talk about scottish history ,what little you know anyway , and dont know scotland is and always has been a pro european country , with 700 years of french citizenship for example , and our biggest historical trading partners over the centuries being europe?
Not sure whats strange about it. Its more strange you arent aware of the strength of pro european feelin in scotland.
I think you missed the point. England had a government foisted on it by Scottish votes, it happened and England did not complain to my recollection. Scottish votes always helped the Labour majority for many years when Labour government occurred and these were in total almost 30 years in total since the war, those vote have also strengthened the opposition as needed during all the Tory governments where England had voted a larger majority. You infer I am anti European, a common problem, I am anti this manifestation of a European Union. Something else entirely. We could draw the same circles with British self governing power in the EU over the years and would be a declining share of the circle. The intent is not the status quo the intent is ever closer union with competences being taken on board all in the name of efficiency. |
|
