|
|
Post by Montegriffo on May 13, 2023 22:29:36 GMT
Stonehenge was privately owned until relatively recently and the landowner was considering demolishing it in order to turn over the land to agriculture. It wasn't until his wife persuaded him to gift the stones to the nation that their future was secured.
As the rightful owner he could have legally sold the stones to, for example, an American museum. Does anyone doubt that if that was the case Britain would be seeking their return?
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 13, 2023 22:29:44 GMT
No, I don't think it would weaken his claim. If I remember correctly, the party with possession has the stronger right in law. For instance, if you move into John's house while he is away on a trip around the world, you acquire squatters' rights. This means that if Jason goes onto the property, you can sue Jason for trespass, even though it is John's house. (even though John could sue you for trespass). It wouldn't matter that you 'stole' John's property - you could still sue Jason for trespass. Possession is 9/10ths of the law (not exactly, but in a roundabout way). Similarly, Greece wouldn't have to have owned the marbles. It would have been enough that they had possession of them. Of course, the real owners of the marbles would be entitled to sue Greece for them, just as John would have been entitled to sue you for trespass. I say this tentatively, because it is some time since I studied this area of law. Sticking to the fire analogy Bill is in possession, John may have had that possession but would have to prove that. To go back to the marbles there is little doubt they resided in Greece and were part of Greek history but do artifacts belong to the people or can they be in private ownership. It is certain they were being slowly destroyed through misuse and negligence. Two things seem certain. They are Greek, they are in British possession. Beyond that the eternal problems with historic 'injustice' raise their heads and I have no answer other than they may be a dam holding back a flood. Yes, John would have to prove he originally had possession. I've no idea whether they were in private ownership or belonged to the Greek state at the time. I was merely making the point that the fact that Elgin may have saved them from certain destruction wouldn't hold any water against the original owner's claim to them under English law. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on May 13, 2023 22:42:40 GMT
Stonehenge was privately owned until relatively recently and the landowner was considering demolishing it in order to turn over the land to agriculture. It wasn't until his wife persuaded him to gift the stones to the nation that their future was secured. As the rightful owner he could have legally sold the stones to, for example, an American museum. Does anyone doubt that if that was the case Britain would be seeking their return? And the US would say up yours. I can’t say that I find English heritage ( another useless charity) best suited like the National Trust another business masquerading as a charity often running roughshod over locals and ordinary people. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on May 14, 2023 5:53:05 GMT
I suppose the point is that in your fire analogy both parties are within the jurisdiction of English law. As far as the marbles are concerned they were under the control of a foreign power. In your analogy ownership of a painting would have to be proven by the party that wanted it back and it is in Bill's possession. If John had stolen the painting in the first place and left it in a cellar gathering dust then that would severely weaken his claim. It is a bit of a Big Yellow Taxi type situation. No, I don't think it would weaken his claim. If I remember correctly, the party with possession has the stronger right in law. For instance, if you move into John's house while he is away on a trip around the world, you acquire squatters' rights. This means that if Jason goes onto the property, you can sue Jason for trespass, even though it is John's house. (even though John could sue you for trespass). It wouldn't matter that you 'stole' John's property - you could still sue Jason for trespass. Possession is 9/10ths of the law (not exactly, but in a roundabout way). Similarly, Greece wouldn't have to have owned the marbles. It would have been enough that they had possession of them. Of course, the real owners of the marbles would be entitled to sue Greece for them, just as John would have been entitled to sue you for trespass. I say this tentatively, because it is some time since I studied this area of law. Are you sure or is there a process for acquiring squatters rights? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2023 6:29:08 GMT
It seems rather odd that those who are the most vehement adversaries of nationalism in principle are also the most strident advocates that instances of national patrimony such as the Benin bronzes be returned to their countries of origin. As lefties they are conditioned to hate this country, but will support nationalism everywhere else. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 14, 2023 6:49:08 GMT
I presume this is a matter of export licences rather than being ''against the law''. It is unlikely that if the BM was to offer to return the marbles that an export licence would be not be granted. No, it is actually the Law. Specifically the Britsh Museum Act 1963 and the National Heritage Act 1983 which make any disposals from the collections of the major museums subject to approval from the Government. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 14, 2023 6:57:37 GMT
With regards to returning items per-se I'm not that bothered. However with few exceptions the task is more tricky that it appears at first sight.
The Elgin Marbles are probably the easiest case - it would be very easy for the British Museum to do a deal with Greece to return the Marbles and keep copies and do a deal for the loan of other antiquities which would enhance the display in London.
The problem comes with items like the Koh-I-Noor diamond where there are competing demands of ownership. Currently there are 4 different countries claiming ownership, I suppose one solution would be to cut it up and give each one its own piece.
And then you have the Benin Bronzes where returning them would be rewarding slavery and the decendents of those enslaved have already said that would oppose the decendents of those slavers being reunited with their loot.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 14, 2023 8:56:39 GMT
Mels an honourary scot.( I liked the patriot as well.)
im a true scot. Born and bred , with birth certificate to go with it.
He was miscast, he should have had a Welsh accent, Wallace was Welsh. who told you that? He was scottish born. His native language according to blind harry , the seanchaidh at the court of james 4th who wrote about him , was gaidhlig.
His family name was recorded in norman french as le waleys . This gave rise to speculation of the origins of the family , as le waleys was french for welsh. The last known speakers of the strathclyde welsh language died out in roughly modern lanarkshire ( wallace family were from renfrewshire and ayrshire , then gaelic speaking areas) generations before wallace was born , and the scots called them bretnach instead of le waleys/wallace.
So there is a theory the wallace family came north with the norman french conquerors of england two centuries before when King David first planted lowland scotland with normans , but by the time of the wars of independence , the family would have been fully assimilated as scots.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 14, 2023 9:26:27 GMT
Eh?
investigation by the scottish historian michael lynch showed that in the decade running up to 1707 , the scottish economy was growing by 2.5 % per annum , and from 1707 on wards for the next century , the scottish economy went into freefall.
Dont understand your point? Scotland made up something like 20 % of the then uk population . Scotland never represented 20 % or more of the people administrating the empire.
you arent stating any facts. You are voicing an uninformed opinion.
Its inarguable that there were many individuals from many countires that personally benefitted for their own selfish reasons from the empire. However , conflating countries like scotland or ireland , with indivdual people who jumped aboard the empire bus is a nonsense.
If scotland and ireland the countires were so on board with empire , why were the irish in constant rebellion to englands rule , and subsequently won a war in the early twentieth century and 26 county independence?
Why was scotland in armed rebellion for the first 120 years of union , with independence movements thorughout the tweniteth century culminating in the two devolution referendums to appease those who wanted out?
Your warped historical revisionism conflcits with reality.
The economy took time to take off and there is little doubt the Jacobite activities did not help nor did some of the taxes imposed but once the benefits of Union were realised then growth was rapid The growth from 1700 was from the context that the Darien episode had effectively bankrupted the nation and it was starting from a very low point. In 1973 there was no immediate benefit of the EEC, like all such agreements benefits took time to accrue and that was in a time where economic activity was at a much faster pace. You cannot remove the effect of the enlightenment with the influence of Scots throughout the Empire. Scots names pop up all over the place where the first actions of the Empire and frequently the best occurred. Their representation as the movers and shapers of Empire is how you measure. From Hudson Bay who employed Orkney men as a matter of policy to Livingstone Scottish names abound. Ireland is a far more complex issue than Scotland as there were the new Irish from ex Norman/Angevin/Viking/Welsh/English stock and the Ulster Scots rooted in Presbyterianism. Scotland was not in armed rebellion, there was a dispute as regards the Royal Succession which divided Scotland as much as it threatened England and in the final analysis was poorly supported by the 45 and most Scots were glad to see the back of the Young Chevalier. The independence movements when I was a youth were pretty poorly supported and referred to often as the Tartan Tories. I went to see the result declared in Stirling when McIntyre lost to a Labour postman and in keeping with the rabble the winning candidate was shouted down. It has been downhill since then. EDIT Indeed the subject of this thread involves a Scotsman ok lets look at this garbled post.
im not trying to. I clarified my position earlier , and you were the one who tried to put a figure showing scots were disporportionately represented across the empire . scotland made up 20 % of the popualtion of the then uk , so im asking you to prove scots made up more than 20 % of the administrators of the empire ? We get no proof sandy yet again from you , just more uninformed opinion. What you want to have happend appears to be radically different from what actually did happen.
well this just sums up your complete lack of knowledge of scottish history. Scotland was in armed uprising and rebellion from almost the word go in 1707. We had riots across scotland as soon as the acts of union (treason) were done .
The 18th century is full of armed uprising , as we know where scotland tried to help the stuart kings back on the throne in return for them swearing they would sever the political union between scotland and england.
The last armed uprising was the 1820 rebellion , by the united scotsmen , to throw off the union with england and set up a scottish republic. It was crushed by the british army , and the leaders baird hardie and wilson executed and many transported to the colonies.
downhill from then? The union has never been weaker in three centuries , and politically the last decade has been the storngest for the independence movement in centuries. Where have you been sandy? are you oblivious to the current political scene?
sorry sandy with respect what a load of guff.
Myth number one – Scotland was bankrupt in 1707.
Well , no, it was not.
The Burghs were cash rich and the Scottish economy in the decade prior to 1707 was growing at 2.5% per annum according to research by the historian Michael Lynch. So who was bankrupt? Well that was the Scottish land owners who had mortgaged their lands to fund the Darien Scheme and if they had not been bailed out by Westminster, the Burgh middle classes would have taken control of Scotland – something the English Government could not allow. The ‘Whig’ English Government had also been buying off the Jacobite Lords in Scotland to ensure the Hanoverian succession at the cost of a £1 million a year ( £1 billion in today’s money). Further the Jacobite Lords were playing the ‘we could ask the French for help’ card which meant ‘Horse Guards’ had to keep English Regiments on the Scottish Border that were needed by Marlborough in continental Europe to prop up England’s war against France.
What actually happened was the incoming Tory Government of the day decided they were not gaining anything as Defoe quickly reported that most of the ‘Jacobite Lords’ were unlikely to support James’ VIIth claim on the thrones of Scotland and England so shifted the bribes from the ‘Jacobite Lords’ to the Tory inclined Scottish Lowland Lords who were in trouble with their Darien mortgage repayments coming due and being in danger of defaulting – the ‘parcel o rogues’ of Burns poem. The English Parliament needed the Union to secure their Northern border once and for all and created pressure to persuade the Scots that ‘Union’ was a good idea – one of which was siding with the Spanish to ensure Darien failed and another passing laws to exclude Scottish traders from all England’s colonies by imposing excessive duties.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2023 9:53:30 GMT
I have always argued the point Re "Independence" and "Separation"
Scotland is an equal part of the United Kingdom, same as Wales, same as England and Northern Ireland, so how can you have independence from yourself. ?
Scotland is not a colony, its not ruled by England, it is ruled by the UK government and the Scottish government.
The SNP are not seeking "independence", they seek "seperation".
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 14, 2023 11:03:28 GMT
And one of the reasons for my my question,how far do we go back and which countries history is liable and why. The point about the UK I suppose is that there is a clear unbroken line of continuum from Empire to modern Britain. Very few countries have that without some major debacle or upheaval that destroys that continuous line. Eh? Sandy , you do realise a large part of the then uk left , and ended the then union in 1922? The uk at its greatest maxim barely lasted a century , and since then the state has further broken down in 1999 with devolution , when the old unitary state ended , and now with northern ireland de facto in the eu.
The uk is one of the youngest states in the world as it stands , barely a hundred years old , and even from the 1707 union its barely some ancient entity?
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 14, 2023 11:04:55 GMT
I have always argued the point Re "Independence" and "Separation" Scotland is an equal part of the United Kingdom, same as Wales, same as England and Northern Ireland, so how can you have independence from yourself. ? Scotland is not a colony, its not ruled by England, it is ruled by the UK government and the Scottish government. The SNP are not seeking "independence", they seek "seperation". there are big arguments just now , with experts looking into wether or not scotland is actually one of englands last colonies sid.
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on May 14, 2023 11:38:50 GMT
He was miscast, he should have had a Welsh accent, Wallace was Welsh. who told you that? He was scottish born. His native language according to blind harry , the seanchaidh at the court of james 4th who wrote about him , was gaidhlig.
His family name was recorded in norman french as le waleys . This gave rise to speculation of the origins of the family , as le waleys was french for welsh. The last known speakers of the strathclyde welsh language died out in roughly modern lanarkshire ( wallace family were from renfrewshire and ayrshire , then gaelic speaking areas) generations before wallace was born , and the scots called them bretnach instead of le waleys/wallace.
So there is a theory the wallace family came north with the norman french conquerors of england two centuries before when King David first planted lowland scotland with normans , but by the time of the wars of independence , the family would have been fully assimilated as scots.
So you're saying Wallace may well have been descended from Welsh or perhaps Welsh/English borders and not of Scot's blood? |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 14, 2023 11:42:06 GMT
who told you that? He was scottish born. His native language according to blind harry , the seanchaidh at the court of james 4th who wrote about him , was gaidhlig.
His family name was recorded in norman french as le waleys . This gave rise to speculation of the origins of the family , as le waleys was french for welsh. The last known speakers of the strathclyde welsh language died out in roughly modern lanarkshire ( wallace family were from renfrewshire and ayrshire , then gaelic speaking areas) generations before wallace was born , and the scots called them bretnach instead of le waleys/wallace.
So there is a theory the wallace family came north with the norman french conquerors of england two centuries before when King David first planted lowland scotland with normans , but by the time of the wars of independence , the family would have been fully assimilated as scots.
So you're saying Wallace may well have been descended from Welsh or perhaps Welsh/English borders and not of Scot's blood? did you read my earlier post? He may be descended of either the welsh , or the lesser known strathclyde welsh , but he himself was a scot. Did you know that there were welsh people at one who point inhabited southern scotland toreador?
The oldest literature in the welsh language comes from south scotland in the 7th century.
Glasgow is a welsh name , the river clyde is welsh , troon on the coast is welsh , and so on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2023 11:48:57 GMT
I have always argued the point Re "Independence" and "Separation" Scotland is an equal part of the United Kingdom, same as Wales, same as England and Northern Ireland, so how can you have independence from yourself. ? Scotland is not a colony, its not ruled by England, it is ruled by the UK government and the Scottish government. The SNP are not seeking "independence", they seek "seperation". Of course the SNP are seeking independence and your attempt to argue otherwise is laughable. Just like Slovakia sought independence from Czechoslovakia, and Slovenia and Croatia sought independence from Yugoslavia. To try and argue that just because Scotland is part of a union, seeking to separate itself from that union does not constitute a desire to be independent of it is logical nonsense. Of course that is a desire for independence. Separation from a wider union and independence are the same frigging thing!!! lol As for the notion that Scotland and the other non-English parts of the union are equal partners, in reality that is demonstrable rubbish. England is far more populous and thus has far more Westminster MPs than all the other parts of the union added together. So even in a democratic chamber, England carries far more weight than Scotland does. This is an unavoidable outcome of a fair democracy when the English so vastly outnumber the Scots and is always going to be an integral unequal weight of power within such a union. So clearly, wherever the English and Scots disagree, the English can always massively outvote the Scots. This fact was clearly demonstrated in the Brexit referendum when a narrow margin of English voters voted for Brexit, but a much lager margin of Scottish voters voted against. But the English will prevailed and the Scots were ignored. And to rub salt into that wound they were told in their independence referendum that the only way to guarantee continued EU membership was to remain in the union, but English voters then subsequently ensured that the exact opposite was true. Being in the union guaranteed them being dragged out of the EU against their will because it is what the English wanted. So the hard truth of it is that - at least in non-devolved matters and for as long as it remains in the union - Scotland will only ever get what it wants if the English want the same thing. If Scotland wants something different from the English and it is not a devolved matter, the only way they will get it is through independence. I'm English and live in England, but I am perfectly capable of recognising the logic of all I have just said. So it is curious to me how so many struggle with such obvious truths. |
|
