Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2023 11:52:06 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.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 14, 2023 13:09:48 GMT
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.
Scots were disproportionately represented across the Empire. Sources for that are Arthur Herman (How Scotland made the modern world) and Neil Oliver the History of Scotland and Niall Ferguson as well as one or two others I cannot currently recall. The disproportional aspect is how they influenced the shaping of Empire and the countries that were part of Empire. If I am wrong then those three above are also wrong, Ferguson in particular who stressed the presence of Scottish names throughout Empire and also Herman who stressed the influence of Scots on all the aspects of Empire. The act of Union was not necessarily popular and there was unrest but then you have to recall, which plays into a later point, that Scotland was emerging from a period in the 1690s when several poor harvests occurred and the Darien episode. In terms of an economy they were on their uppers. The economy picked up after the 1720s and exports of grain had doubled by mid century. That does not mean it happened straight away, I stressed it took a few decades. The 1820 problems occurred as a direct result of the post Napoleonic wars depression that affected England as well. I am not saying this and that occurred becasue of x, I am saying it is not as simple as England bad Scotland good. History is interpretation the trick is not to read into it what you want to have happened and there are some Scottish historians who fall into that trap all too easily. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 14, 2023 13:15:08 GMT
ok lets look at this garbled post.
Scots were disproportionately represented across the Empire. 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?
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 14, 2023 13:15:26 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. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 14, 2023 13:19:08 GMT
ok lets look at this garbled post. and Neil Oliver the History of Scotland sandy , i have this book in question and neil oliver explicitly agrees ( not my favourite person or historian)that the scottish economy by all research went into freefall after the union.
Thats backed up by the aformentioned michael lynch , a new history of scotland , and tam devine , the scottish nation 1700 to 2000 , plus many many more.
|
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on May 14, 2023 13:25:47 GMT
and Neil Oliver the History of Scotland sandy , i have this book in question and neil oliver explicitly agrees ( not my favourite person or historian)that the scottish economy by all research went into freefall after the union.
Thats backed up by the aformentioned michael lynch , a new history of scotland , and tam devine , the scottish nation 1700 to 2000 , plus many many more.
I'm sure the Scottish economy will get a boost from all the disillusioned Brexiteers drowning their sorrows in scotch. |
|
|
|
Post by colbops on May 14, 2023 13:27:52 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? Think that's a bit of a myth since he bought them and the land at auction to prevent them being bought by an American to be shipped over there. Donating them earned him a hereditary title. Interestingly with all this 'give it back' mentality going on, one could argue that he was actually handling stolen goods, that he, and subsequently the crown aren't the rightful owners since Henry VIII stole it from the rightful owners and gave it to the Duke of Somerset |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 14, 2023 13:28:41 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. sorry sid , because you didnt quote me i missed a notification of your earlier post.
in the uk , how you gain consent is by stadning on a manifesto , putting it to the public , and the public voting you in on that manifesto. In scotland , the snp have done that numerous times. What more consent do you need ?
in the uk , you have a clear constitutional rule. No past parliament can bind a future parliament. There are no preconditions in terms of timescale set on referendums . There cannot be , with the exception of northern ireland , where your own government has enshrined in treaty a generation defined in political terms as 7 years.
So whats good for ireland , or england is good for scotland.
it was. And northern ireland left in despite the rubbish about brexit being a uk vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 14, 2023 13:31:02 GMT
sandy , i have this book in question and neil oliver explicitly agrees ( not my favourite person or historian)that the scottish economy by all research went into freefall after the union.
Thats backed up by the aformentioned michael lynch , a new history of scotland , and tam devine , the scottish nation 1700 to 2000 , plus many many more.
I'm sure the Scottish economy will get a boost from all the disillusioned Brexiteers drowning their sorrows in scotch. all the proceeds from whiskey with an e go to londons treasurey monte .In fact , scottish whiskey is one of the yookays biggest export. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 14, 2023 13:39:39 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 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.
|
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on May 14, 2023 13:40:50 GMT
I'm sure the Scottish economy will get a boost from all the disillusioned Brexiteers drowning their sorrows in scotch. all the proceeds from whiskey with an e go to londons treasurey monte .In fact , scottish whiskey is one of the yookays biggest export. Is there such a thing as Scottish whiskey? www.bbcgoodfood.com/howto/guide/whisky-or-whiskey-whats-difference |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 14, 2023 13:43:15 GMT
Scots were disproportionately represented across the Empire. 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" That is hardly falling off a cliff. 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. The Western parishes of Glasgow and the Edinburgh New Town all occurred in the middle to late 18th century. Hardly the result of a poor economy. To quote Tom Devine " Ultimately however, the true test of the relationship between the Union and Scottish development would come in the longer terms, and a survey of the decades after c. 1740 does suggest a clear beneficial effect in that period". |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 14, 2023 13:45:26 GMT
and Neil Oliver the History of Scotland sandy , i have this book in question and neil oliver explicitly agrees ( not my favourite person or historian)that the scottish economy by all research went into freefall after the union.
Thats backed up by the aformentioned michael lynch , a new history of scotland , and tam devine , the scottish nation 1700 to 2000 , plus many many more.
You said the rest of the 18th century. My point was always benefits took time to occur and did occur with in a few decades of teh Union. I have already quoted Devine on this. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 14, 2023 13:51:17 GMT
So was London and quite a few other areas but teh vote was regards the UK, not individual parts of it 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. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 14, 2023 13:53:00 GMT
sandy , i have this book in question and neil oliver explicitly agrees ( not my favourite person or historian)that the scottish economy by all research went into freefall after the union.
Thats backed up by the aformentioned michael lynch , a new history of scotland , and tam devine , the scottish nation 1700 to 2000 , plus many many more.
You said the rest of the 18th century. My point was always benefits took time to occur and did occur with in a few decades of teh Union. I have already quoted Devine on this. i stand by what i said. You denied the scottish economy went into freefall at all earlier ,and now you argue semantics and try and rake over the coals to see what glimmers you can find to post.
The union is ,and was clearly a disaster.
I have devines book here in front of me. He clearly states that the economy was in freefall thorughout the 18th century as i said , with the economic promises made to secure the union never materialising.
Devine says vulberable scottish industries like paper making and cloth manufacturing were exposed to english competition. Our trade with our european partners , baltic state low countires france , were cut off at the knees. Excessive westmisnter duties applied. the promises of mass demand for scots goods in the english colonies never materialsed , with poor to sluggish demand at best replacing the thriving pre 1707 trade we had with our near neighbours ( sound familiar)
Devine explicitly states it took until the 19th century , and mainly the tobacco trade , to enrich a select few scots at the expense of the many.
The scottish economy and outlook was that bad emigration was off the scale.
Sorry sandy , but you really are posting complete falsehoods and trying to portray a different picture to reality.
|
|
