|
|
Post by thomas on May 14, 2023 14:50:02 GMT
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. I dont need to expand any horizon , just because you have found one historian of the many discussed who might ( we dont know that yet) agree with your uninformed position on scotland economy.
prove it.
The enlightenment was nothing to do with the union. It was to do with the kirks pre union policy of educating the poor , with scotland being the first country in europe to do so.
That in turn gave scotland generations of great educated thinkers , inventors , and the union benefitted from education acts that had been put into place by scotland over the centuires before the union. In the 17th century foir example , independent scotland had five universities while england only had two.
voltaire famously said , we look to scotland ( not britian or the union) for all our ideas of civilisation.
so sandy , you have went from initially denying scotland had economic problems as a result of the union , to mitigating those severe problems by telling us ( with no support or links) you think it had abated by the mid 18th century.
Prove it then?
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 14, 2023 14:56:28 GMT
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. i dont miss any point. Again , you backtrack from your original position. you claimed somehow ( without backup again , just sandys words nothing more) scotland always influences the uk government.
now you backtrack and say it has happened once. once in a century.
i repeat again we know this , it happened once ,and wether it had happened a 100 times or once, it still wont shut us down complainign about this dysfunctional union or englands brexit.
prove it?
Tony blair won three elections in england. Without the scottish votes , he would still have had a majority.
i dont really care what you see yourself as . Im pro eu. you are anti eu. we dont agree . I will vote against brexit everytime i have a vote.
i have no interest in britian. I replied to a point you made about scotland , not britian , and so in return you divert onto something else again.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 14, 2023 15:05:12 GMT
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.
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. sorry sandy missed this part.
Good.
Im a pro european , and fully support more integration with our european brothers and sisters.
You are correct though. If starmer does take the uk back in , the old uk in the eu status quo is gone forever. No more indulged spoilt child. No more uk rebate. No more pound , dump it and take on the euro. No more opt outs .
Now europe sees the uk struggles without being a part of the eu , and you need them more than they need you , you are going to be seen to go back like a fucking whipped dog.
As steve and others hinted further up the thread , its the elderly who are anti eu , and totally out of touch with the reality of the modern world.
Tick toc i think till starmer takes us all back in..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2023 15:13:36 GMT
This bit I agree with thomas "call it what you like , the yes movement seek to end the 1707 union. Any partner should be able to freely withdraw from a treaty as they wish"But it has to be by consent The way I see it is that we have had a referendum, and the YES people lost it, however it was stated at the time I believe that there should not be another referendum for at least a lifetime / generation UNLESS the constitutional position of Scotland changed. As a Unionist, I have to concede that Scotlands constitutional position has changed ... Scotland as a nation was taken out of the European Union against the expressed will of the majority. So was London and quite a few other areas but teh vote was regards the UK, not individual parts of it. If there ahd been a few more voters then it is possible England could have been kept in the EU agianst her will by the Scottish vote. In 64 Scotland foisted onto England a Labour government as the Labour seats made the majority for Wilson. I have no recollection of England complaining, such things are the very essence of Union win some lose some and that is what Remainers have been saying as regards the EU for years. The difference of course is that London is a city in England, within the United Kingdom, however Scotland is not a province or region, it is actually a nation. It is a nation that belongs to what is, or should be a voluntary union of three nations ( or two nations + one principality ) and one province ( Ulster ). If there were to be another referendum, I would back and support "NO" to breaking up the United Kingdom, but sadly I do believe that it is not democratic to refuse another referendum, based on the fact that most Scottish people did not want to leave the EU. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 14, 2023 16:48:43 GMT
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.Looking at the shenanigans of the SNP lately it seems very little has changed in Scotland in the past 300 years...  |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 14, 2023 16:49:47 GMT
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. I dont need to expand any horizon , just because you have found one historian of the many discussed who might ( we dont know that yet) agree with your uninformed position on scotland economy.
prove it.
The enlightenment was nothing to do with the union. It was to do with the kirks pre union policy of educating the poor , with scotland being the first country in europe to do so.
That in turn gave scotland generations of great educated thinkers , inventors , and the union benefitted from education acts that had been put into place by scotland over the centuires before the union. In the 17th century foir example , independent scotland had five universities while england only had two.
voltaire famously said , we look to scotland ( not britian or the union) for all our ideas of civilisation.
so sandy , you have went from initially denying scotland had economic problems as a result of the union , to mitigating those severe problems by telling us ( with no support or links) you think it had abated by the mid 18th century.
Prove it then?
I said, as you well know, that the benefits of Union appeared within a few decades. What do you wish me to 'prove'. All I am doing is repeating the opinion of some well known historians. You disagree, I am not going to go trawling around for information that you will just dismiss. We disagree, so be it although you do also seem to dismiss Tom Devine's opinion from whom I quoted. The enlightenment was invigorated by Union as the education the Church provided was very much directed to the word of God with its then peculiar Scottish slant of intolerance towards alternative points of view and observance of the Sabbath as Aitkenhead found out very much to his cost at the turn of the century. I repeat, again, it is a complex issue and way transcends Scotland good England bad which seems to be the whole direction of your historical journey. That the Union benefitted England as well is not the issue, that it also benefitted Scotland is and keeping to the parcel of rogues scenario does no credit to Scotland in Britain. The Scottish enlightenment flourished during the Union, you cannot separate that, according to you, stultifying Union from the freedom that the enlightenment encouraged. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 14, 2023 16:58:02 GMT
I dont need to expand any horizon , just because you have found one historian of the many discussed who might ( we dont know that yet) agree with your uninformed position on scotland economy.
prove it.
The enlightenment was nothing to do with the union. It was to do with the kirks pre union policy of educating the poor , with scotland being the first country in europe to do so.
That in turn gave scotland generations of great educated thinkers , inventors , and the union benefitted from education acts that had been put into place by scotland over the centuires before the union. In the 17th century foir example , independent scotland had five universities while england only had two.
voltaire famously said , we look to scotland ( not britian or the union) for all our ideas of civilisation.
so sandy , you have went from initially denying scotland had economic problems as a result of the union , to mitigating those severe problems by telling us ( with no support or links) you think it had abated by the mid 18th century.
Prove it then?
I said, as you well know, that the benefits of Union appeared within a few decades. What do you wish me to 'prove'. All I am doing is repeating the opinion of some well known historians. You disagree, I am not going to go trawling around for information that you will just dismiss. We disagree, so be it although you do also seem to dismiss Tom Devine's opinion from whom I quoted. The enlightenment was invigorated by Union as the education the Church provided was very much directed to the word of God with its then peculiar Scottish slant of intolerance towards alternative points of view and observance of the Sabbath as Aitkenhead found out very much to his cost at the turn of the century. I repeat, again, it is a complex issue and way transcends Scotland good England bad which seems to be the whole direction of your historical journey. That the Union benefitted England as well is not the issue, that it also benefitted Scotland is and keeping to the parcel of rogues scenario does no credit to Scotland in Britain. The Scottish enlightenment flourished during the Union, you cannot separate that, according to you, stultifying Union from the freedom that the enlightenment encouraged. sandy you are going around and around in circles mate making empty claims without proof.
its self evident.back up the claims you have repeatedly made .If you cant , we can dismiss them .
you are not. So far , you claim ferguson and another guy agrees with your position but cant back it up. All you are doing is repeating your own misinformation.
i have tam devines book on scottish history in front of me , and i still cant find the part you claim regading the scottish economy in the 18th century.
same tactics as you display al lthrough this thread and others. You make empty claims , that claim is challenged , you then backtrack and try and mitigate damage limitation.
without an indy scotlands education policy , there would have been no scottish enlightenment .union or no.
now you are putting words in my mouth. I didint say it didnt flourish within the union. What i said was the union didnt cause the scottish enlightenment.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 14, 2023 17:00:01 GMT
So was London and quite a few other areas but teh vote was regards the UK, not individual parts of it. If there ahd been a few more voters then it is possible England could have been kept in the EU agianst her will by the Scottish vote. In 64 Scotland foisted onto England a Labour government as the Labour seats made the majority for Wilson. I have no recollection of England complaining, such things are the very essence of Union win some lose some and that is what Remainers have been saying as regards the EU for years. The difference of course is that London is a city in England, within the United Kingdom, however Scotland is not a province or region, it is actually a nation. It is a nation that belongs to what is, or should be a voluntary union of three nations ( or two nations + one principality ) and one province ( Ulster ). If there were to be another referendum, I would back and support "NO" to breaking up the United Kingdom, but sadly I do believe that it is not democratic to refuse another referendum, based on the fact that most Scottish people did not want to leave the EU. The point about participating in a vote is that one accepts the premise of the vote and accepts the outcome of that vote. The vote was as regards the UK as membership of the EU was not a devolved issue and it was a UK wide decision to determine the direction of the Union not each individual country in it. In the same way with EU majority voting the direction of the EU is decided Union wide it is rarely restricted by any sort of veto and that veto right was gradually being whittled away. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2023 17:01:49 GMT
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.Looking at the shenanigans of the SNP lately it seems very little has changed in Scotland in the past 300 years... Yep, their money still keeps disappearing. Even their own dictatorship is dysfunctional. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 14, 2023 17:01:52 GMT
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.Looking at the shenanigans of the SNP lately it seems very little has changed in Scotland in the past 300 years... bought and sold for english gold....? I hope one day we get to the bottom of the mystery behind sturgeon and all the conpiracy theories.
Still you are one to talk.
Seems little has changed over the centuries in your country either. how many english politicians are desperate to sell your country down the road to brussells , not to mention the grovelling they do to washington?
Putin had half the tory party in his back pocket .Didnt boris take quite a bit of the old rouble in return for awarding that kgb guy a peerage?
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 14, 2023 17:02:39 GMT
Looking at the shenanigans of the SNP lately it seems very little has changed in Scotland in the past 300 years... Yep, their money still keeps disappearing. Even their own dictatorship is dysfunctional. Whens the troops mobilising che? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 14, 2023 17:05:57 GMT
Looking at the shenanigans of the SNP lately it seems very little has changed in Scotland in the past 300 years... bought and sold for english gold....? I hope one day we get to the bottom of the mystery behind sturgeon and all the conpiracy theories.
Still you are one to talk.
Seems little has changed over the centuries in your country either. how many english politicians are desperate to sell your country down the road to brussells , not to mention the grovelling they do to washington?
Putin had half the tory party in his back pocket .Didnt boris take quite a bit of the old rouble in return for awarding that kgb guy a peerage?
Christ almighty think before writing - the UK Tory Government has spent the last 10 years supporting Ukraine in their conflict against Russia. If Russia had bought and paid for the Tory party they didnt get a very good deal..  |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 14, 2023 17:10:34 GMT
bought and sold for english gold....? I hope one day we get to the bottom of the mystery behind sturgeon and all the conpiracy theories.
Still you are one to talk.
Seems little has changed over the centuries in your country either. how many english politicians are desperate to sell your country down the road to brussells , not to mention the grovelling they do to washington?
Putin had half the tory party in his back pocket .Didnt boris take quite a bit of the old rouble in return for awarding that kgb guy a peerage?
Christ almighty think before writing - the UK Tory Government has spent the last 10 years supporting Ukraine in their conflict against Russia. If Russia had bought and paid for the Tory party they didnt get a very good deal.. Why Britain’s Tories are addicted to Russian money
SNP MSP slams Ruth Davidson over dinner-for-cash with Russian donor
It’s a murky world.
Scratch the surface, and you’ll discover that the Tories depend on a tiny group of rich men to survive. Just 62 of them in total! Scratch a bit deeper, and you’ll find Russian oligarchs and their associates donating millions to the Conservative Party.
Tory central office even accepted £20,000 from a Vladimir Putin crony to lunch with Ruth Davidson.
True to form, the Scottish Tory leader has dodged questions about the donation. Davidson’s also been ducking questions about her own local difficulties over donations.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 14, 2023 17:12:20 GMT
Revealed: Russian donors have stepped up Tory funding
As Johnson accused of ‘cover-up’ over Kremlin interference, major new Russian donations to Conservatives revealed – despite previous Tory pledge to distance themselves from Russian money.
Responding to openDemocracy’s findings, Labour MP Ben Bradshaw said: “Now we know one of the reasons Boris Johnson is suppressing the official report into Kremlin penetration of our democracy. It's because of the substantial and growing links between Russian money and the Tory Party.”
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 14, 2023 17:13:42 GMT
The Conservatives Have aLong Historyof Taking Money From Russia
|
|
