|
|
Post by colbops on May 14, 2023 19:53:36 GMT
India to push for UK to hand over Koh-i-Noor diamond
The push comes from the top of the Indian government and is one of the priorities for Narendra Modi, the country's Prime Minister.
Of course it is, my sweet innocent deluded fool. That is a classic case of leverage to get what he really wants by trying to create a diplomatic incident thereby gaining an upper hand in negotiations |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2023 19:59:10 GMT
India to push for UK to hand over Koh-i-Noor diamond
The push comes from the top of the Indian government and is one of the priorities for Narendra Modi, the country's Prime Minister.
Of course it is, my sweet innocent deluded fool. That is a classic case of leverage to get what he really wants by trying to create a diplomatic incident thereby gaining an upper hand in negotiations Well if we don't want to give him what he really wants, all we have to do to stymie him is to actually call his bluff and give the diamond back. We did after all pretty much steal it from them in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 14, 2023 20:01:15 GMT
Page 58 halfway down the page start of a paragraph. read the whole chapter , and what you imply is incorrect at worst , or part cherry picking small excerpts of scotlands economy while ignoring the whole at worst.
Lynch claims in detail from 1696 to 1706 , scotland economy grew by 2.5 % per annum. Then from 1707 , to 1797 , the next 9 decades , went into freefall.
While devine doesnt give the same exhaustive econmic detail as lynch and others do in his book , much of what he says back s up lynch , and is contrary to what you imply.
In page 52 of devines "the scottish nation 1707 - 2000 he writes...
"the period before the union was not (for scotland) an economic dark before the dawn."
He makes the point punitive taxes were imposed on scotland to pay for englands war of the spainsh succession and subsequent madssive debts.
He goes on at length to tell of the pros and conse of various small and emerging sectors of the economy , but does not mention the overall state of the scottish economy in depth as lynch does against the backdrop of 1696 to 1706. The growth of that ten year pre union period never seems to be reached again until the 19th century.
He makes the point clearly on page 57 where i quote...
"The economic miracle (of union) predicted by some pro union propagandists had manifestly not taken place."
so no once again sandy i disagree.
Golly gosh. I will try again. I did not say Scotland's economy did not grow but it was starting from a very low point as there had just been a series of poor harvests. "The next 9 decades after Union it went into freefall" flies very much in the face of even Devine who saw growth all round certainly post 1760s. I do not dispute taxes that were punitive but there is little doubt apart from Lynch, that the economy grew significantly post the 45 and boomed post 1785. No one says Scotland was in the doldrums but the Scottish pound had been sinking in realtion to the English pound for years. Not a good measure of success. Of course there was no economic miracle and I am not here to apologise for pro union propagandists making spurious claims I neither stated or referred to in any way. |
|
|
|
Post by colbops on May 14, 2023 20:06:31 GMT
Of course it is, my sweet innocent deluded fool. That is a classic case of leverage to get what he really wants by trying to create a diplomatic incident thereby gaining an upper hand in negotiations Well if we don't want to give him what he really wants, all we have to do to stymie him is to actually call his bluff and give the diamond back. We did after all pretty much steal it from them in the first place. Or find another wat to eliminate the lever. Our own diplomatic incident, ideally one that would create profound embarrassment for the Indian Government - Yes Prime Minister - A Diplomatic Incident is the training video the PM and FS need to be watching for this one. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on May 14, 2023 20:17:54 GMT
Page 58 halfway down the page start of a paragraph. read the whole chapter , and what you imply is incorrect at worst , or part cherry picking small excerpts of scotlands economy while ignoring the whole at worst.
Lynch claims in detail from 1696 to 1706 , scotland economy grew by 2.5 % per annum. Then from 1707 , to 1797 , the next 9 decades , went into freefall.
While devine doesnt give the same exhaustive econmic detail as lynch and others do in his book , much of what he says back s up lynch , and is contrary to what you imply.
In page 52 of devines "the scottish nation 1707 - 2000 he writes...
"the period before the union was not (for scotland) an economic dark before the dawn."
He makes the point punitive taxes were imposed on scotland to pay for englands war of the spainsh succession and subsequent madssive debts.
He goes on at length to tell of the pros and conse of various small and emerging sectors of the economy , but does not mention the overall state of the scottish economy in depth as lynch does against the backdrop of 1696 to 1706. The growth of that ten year pre union period never seems to be reached again until the 19th century.
He makes the point clearly on page 57 where i quote...
"The economic miracle (of union) predicted by some pro union propagandists had manifestly not taken place."
so no once again sandy i disagree.
If you want to see why Scotland has struggled, take a look it's population growth or lack of it; it's about to happen again. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 15, 2023 6:05:45 GMT
Regarding your argument here , you arent providing a counter to my argument , merely a narrative running alongside it. im saying the process was set in place that produced the scottish enligtenment long before 1707. You say the union provided a platform for it.cant you see how both statements dont necessarily contradict each other?
Heres what you originally said about the enlightenment..
totally disagree. those great thinkers would have been released with or without the union , because the educational process had that produced them was set in motion long before the union of 1707.
what political stability?
The scottish enlightenment ran from the 18th to early 19th century. during that time , we had the union in 1707 , subsequent riots , the severance of scotland from its old trading partners , malt tax riots , 1715 rebellion , war of the spanish succession , 1745 uprising , 1820 uprising and so on.
you final sentence is irrelevant to my original point.
. As regards political stability your dates stop at 1745 and recommence in 1820. I said that the benefits of Union were apparent within a few decades, Devine says c. sandy this is a nonsense , and yet more desperation on your part. You calimed the union provided "political stability" for the scottish enlightenment. The scottish enlightenment ran through the 18th century to the early 19th by common agreement.
I have given you off the top of my head a list of armed conflicts and uprisings in that period. There was no political stability in this period.
To get back to the wider discussion , you keep cherry picking devine quotes as though he agrees with what you are saying. He doesnt. I re read the whole chapter you quote from in devines book and clearly he is imlying a different economic scenario to what you are implying.
You cherry pick small quotes , with references to small sectors of the scottish economy , where as i said some things improved, others diminished , but devine gives the killer quote to yourr hyperbole where he talks about how the economic beneifts of union never materialsed.
You arent intrested in the historical truth. Only cherry picked quotes that can enforce your own unionist view.
Tell me though sandy. All these histrorians aside , lets ask a pertinent question and talk cold hard facts. If the unin was and is so successfull why are so many people unhappy with it? You have had three hundred years to up your game , but in that time , we have had 120 years of armed uprisings in scotland , a century of political arguments against the union , two devolution referendums and one indy ref so far.
Many english are also deeply unhappy with the union , and of course the 26 counties of ireland left after bloody rebellion and war , with 30 years of troubles in northern ireland and an uneasy peace , with the 6 counties half way out the door and still in the EU.
That doesnt come across as a happy well loved union with brotherly love , and everyone benefitting from so called english largesse. In fact the opposite is true.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 15, 2023 6:06:51 GMT
India to push for UK to hand over Koh-i-Noor diamond
The push comes from the top of the Indian government and is one of the priorities for Narendra Modi, the country's Prime Minister.
Of course it is, my sweet innocent deluded fool. That is a classic case of leverage to get what he really wants by trying to create a diplomatic incident thereby gaining an upper hand in negotiations thank god you are here to keep us all on the straight and narrow colly. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 15, 2023 6:28:31 GMT
read the whole chapter , and what you imply is incorrect at worst , or part cherry picking small excerpts of scotlands economy while ignoring the whole at worst.
Lynch claims in detail from 1696 to 1706 , scotland economy grew by 2.5 % per annum. Then from 1707 , to 1797 , the next 9 decades , went into freefall.
While devine doesnt give the same exhaustive econmic detail as lynch and others do in his book , much of what he says back s up lynch , and is contrary to what you imply.
In page 52 of devines "the scottish nation 1707 - 2000 he writes...
"the period before the union was not (for scotland) an economic dark before the dawn."
He makes the point punitive taxes were imposed on scotland to pay for englands war of the spainsh succession and subsequent madssive debts.
He goes on at length to tell of the pros and conse of various small and emerging sectors of the economy , but does not mention the overall state of the scottish economy in depth as lynch does against the backdrop of 1696 to 1706. The growth of that ten year pre union period never seems to be reached again until the 19th century.
He makes the point clearly on page 57 where i quote...
"The economic miracle (of union) predicted by some pro union propagandists had manifestly not taken place."
so no once again sandy i disagree.
Golly gosh. I will try again. I did not say Scotland's economy did not grow but it was starting from a very low point as there had just been a series of poor harvests. "The next 9 decades after Union it went into freefall" flies very much in the face of even Devine who saw growth all round certainly post 1760s. devine didnt say that. He said across the 18th century , certain sectors of the scottish economy grew , and certain sectors diminished , and gives his reasons why that is. Overall taking the whole scottish economy into account , 9 decades of the 18th century the scottish economy fell off a cliff in comparison to the pre union years of 1696 to 1706. That was the comparison.
this is rather vague. It started from a high point pre union as lynch says , and devine agrees , and the union cast scotland into economic turmoil which devine clearly goes through in his book.
Along the 18th century , he clearly points out the fall and change , and why this happened.
no there hadnt. Again , to make a weak point you remain rather vague. There was a poor harvest according to devine in his first chapter in 1695. This poor harvest also affected much of northern and western europe , to quote devine because of "climatic deterioration". So it wasnt just scotland.
On top of that , he makes the point scotland was being harmed by englands wars with france in 1689 and 1697 , which exacerbated the climate problems.
So to sum up on agriculture , devine makes the point the changes to better practice and modern technology was well under way before the union , and scotland was among the more better fed population of northern west europe , a highly educated society , who also had the good geographical fortune to possess coal , iron ore and water transport in abundance as the industrial revolution dawned.
The picture you try and fail to paint of scotland as some backward barbaric society that england civilised thorugh union is laughable , and smacks nothing more of empty headed unionist propaganda.
Further back in history , lets point out that it was those self same so called backward savages in scotland and ireland who educated and chrisitanised the pagan barbaric anglo saxons centuries earlier.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 15, 2023 6:35:33 GMT
read the whole chapter , and what you imply is incorrect at worst , or part cherry picking small excerpts of scotlands economy while ignoring the whole at worst.
Lynch claims in detail from 1696 to 1706 , scotland economy grew by 2.5 % per annum. Then from 1707 , to 1797 , the next 9 decades , went into freefall.
While devine doesnt give the same exhaustive econmic detail as lynch and others do in his book , much of what he says back s up lynch , and is contrary to what you imply.
In page 52 of devines "the scottish nation 1707 - 2000 he writes...
"the period before the union was not (for scotland) an economic dark before the dawn."
He makes the point punitive taxes were imposed on scotland to pay for englands war of the spainsh succession and subsequent madssive debts.
He goes on at length to tell of the pros and conse of various small and emerging sectors of the economy , but does not mention the overall state of the scottish economy in depth as lynch does against the backdrop of 1696 to 1706. The growth of that ten year pre union period never seems to be reached again until the 19th century.
He makes the point clearly on page 57 where i quote...
"The economic miracle (of union) predicted by some pro union propagandists had manifestly not taken place."
so no once again sandy i disagree.
If you want to see why Scotland has struggled, take a look it's population growth or lack of it; it's about to happen again. I wonder what happened in 1707 to affect scotland popualtion growth in comparison with england?
Not to mention thatcher and her tory parties economic warfare on scotland , that between the years 1979 to 1999 , caused a fifth of our population to emigrate.
I agree mate. We need independence to control and grow our population , including the ability to encourage migration. Even with the weak powers of devolution , we have somewhat stemmed the fall.
More imprtantly , if i were you mate , i would be worried about the overpopualtion of little england. A country barely bigger than scotland with ten times the popualtion ,housing and infrastructure crises under successive governments.
Not to mention how your own tory party and labour are trying to breed the english out of existence with mass migration. I think your problems are far worse than ours.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on May 15, 2023 6:47:44 GMT
The SNATs are jealous of the English because there's a lot more English people than Scots.
The answer is simple.
Don't be jealous of the English.
Make babies.
And if you can't, whose problem is that? Not England's.
We're all British.
Abolish devolution.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 15, 2023 6:51:08 GMT
you arent making babies vinny. Are you really that stupid in light of the fact the majority of your fellow english on this forum are in meltdown over the tories failure to control mass immigration?
City the size of newcastle every year needed im told.
The islamificiation of london and other major cities.
People like patman post told he isnt and never will be english.
i think you need to practice what you preach vinny , and perhaps the tories wont let so many furriners into your country.
Four-fifths of population growth in the UK is the direct and indirect result of immigration – see our paper and the most recent
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 15, 2023 7:01:39 GMT
you arent making babies vinny. Are you really that stupid in light of the fact the majority of your fellow english on this forum are in meltdown over the tories failure to control mass immigration? So what is Scotlands excuse? - The fertility rate for England is 1.62 children per woman. In Wales its 1.49 children per woman - yet in Scotland its only 1.31 children per women. Is that the fault of the Tories or the SNP? |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 15, 2023 7:06:17 GMT
you arent making babies vinny. Are you really that stupid in light of the fact the majority of your fellow english on this forum are in meltdown over the tories failure to control mass immigration? So what is Scotlands excuse? - The fertility rate for England is 1.62 children per woman. In Wales its 1.49 children per woman - yet in Scotland its only 1.31 children per women. Is that the fault of the Tories or the SNP? the fertility rate of englands isnt the cause of englands popualtion growth as the article makes clear. why are the tories flooding england with mass immigration if females are so fertile?
yet more desperate diversions. Havent you brexiter tories been telling me you are extremely pissed off with your parties mass immigration that you once thought was all the fault of the EU?
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 15, 2023 7:08:49 GMT
you arent making babies vinny. Are you really that stupid in light of the fact the majority of your fellow english on this forum are in meltdown over the tories failure to control mass immigration? Is that the fault of the Tories or the SNP? why is england fertility rate so low in comparison to france 1.83 , or ireland 1.78 or denmark 1.72?
Is that the fault of brussells or the tories in london?
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 15, 2023 7:12:49 GMT
you arent making babies vinny. Are you really that stupid in light of the fact the majority of your fellow english on this forum are in meltdown over the tories failure to control mass immigration? So what is Scotlands excuse? - The fertility rate for England is 1.62 children per woman. In Wales its 1.49 children per woman - yet in Scotland its only 1.31 children per women. Is that the fault of the Tories or the SNP? The Tory immigration failure
The Conservatives have lost control of immigration. Over the past year, according to data released last week, net migration into Britain has soared to 504,000, the highest on record. This means half a million more people are coming into Britain than are leaving – that’s a city the size of Liverpool every year.
But not only are the Tories presiding over record amounts of legal migration, they are also overseeing a rapid rise in numbers of people arriving in the country unlawfully, in small boats across the Channel.
What a hill to die on pacifico. Only the foolish would try and weaponise immigration and birth rates regarding scotland with the mass anger in your country at the minute , and the tories lack of control of immigration. 
|
|
