|
|
Post by om15 on Nov 26, 2022 21:23:05 GMT
IF that were the case it is rather illogical for the Scots to continually berate the English about their current situation.
You have been advised by many on this forum that the English have no interest, (other than an increasing boredom) about your internal squabbles about separation. It is the majority of Scots who are thwarting your desires for an independent Scotland, not us.
We may jeer at your ghastly First Minister because of her appalling political incompetence, dishonesty and bigotry but don't take that as a sign of our continuing pleasure at being in a Union with the Scots. This is your problem not ours.
|
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Nov 27, 2022 0:29:10 GMT
IF that were the case it is rather illogical for the Scots to continually berate the English about their current situation. You have been advised by many on this forum that the English have no interest, (other than an increasing boredom) about your internal squabbles about separation. It is the majority of Scots who are thwarting your desires for an independent Scotland, not us. We may jeer at your ghastly First Minister because of her appalling political incompetence, dishonesty and bigotry but don't take that as a sign of our continuing pleasure at being in a Union with the Scots. This is your problem not ours. Please, for the very first time, provide evidence of Scots continually berating "the English about our current position" If you and "so many on this forum" are not interested and are bored, WTF are you doing on a Scottish sub-forum. I am not an admirer of Sturgeon but you must really stop reading the Mail, Express & Telegraph. They are feeding you rubbish about ScotGov |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Nov 27, 2022 3:05:36 GMT
FFS in 1707 the Jocks wanted a union. No they didn't. A majority of upper class traitors did. There was mass rioting when the dirty deed was done Prior to the Union, Scotland was rife with famine. During this time Scotland tried to gain wealth and influence by acquiring a colony in Panama (Darien Scheme), and it failed. The huge loss of investment into this new Scottish colony left the entire Scottish lowlands in financial ruin. Neither, the Union of the Crowns or Jacobitism alternatives were viewed by Scottish parliamentarians as a way to secure peace and prosperity for Scotland like a union with England - and as it turned out some 300 years later, they were right. |
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Nov 27, 2022 10:42:26 GMT
No they didn't. A majority of upper class traitors did. There was mass rioting when the dirty deed was done Prior to the Union, Scotland was rife with famine. During this time Scotland tried to gain wealth and influence by acquiring a colony in Panama (Darien Scheme), and it failed. The huge loss of investment into this new Scottish colony left the entire Scottish lowlands in financial ruin. Neither, the Union of the Crowns or Jacobitism alternatives were viewed by Scottish parliamentarians as a way to secure peace and prosperity for Scotland like a union with England - and as it turned out some 300 years later, they were right. No matey. England who had the most powerful navy in the world blockaded Scotland. It was terrified of a invasion involving the French and Spanish from north of the border. That was the reason for the Act of the Union. Which had nothing to do with the people of Scotland. But the barons. Who like Johnston and Farage bought and sold England with gangster Russian gold. The barons sold Scotland for English gold. Not the people. Or as Burns put it. A parcel o rogues in a nation. The simple fact now remains 300 years later. Energy rich Scotland can no longer afford bankrupt England. Would you care to give one economic benefit Scotland would gain remaining part of the UK with bankrupt England. It is a very simple question. That even the winkers in Westminster fail to answer. I am sure you cannot either. But always a first. Go on be a devil. |
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Nov 27, 2022 10:46:52 GMT
The ruling was that the Union is not voluntary. FFS in 1707 the Jocks wanted a union. See previous post. You do not even understand the history of your own nation. Far less Scotland or the UK. Do they teach English history in English schools. It is fascinating. Like Scottish history you could not make it up. You should try and read it some times. You might even understand that Culloden was the British army and not the English army, as some clowns on here ranted in the old forum. And how that came about. www.robertburns.org/works/344.shtmlukpoliticsdebate.boards.net/post/23539/thread |
|
|
|
Post by borchester on Nov 27, 2022 12:55:25 GMT
FFS in 1707 the Jocks wanted a union. See previous post. You do not even understand the history of your own nation. Far less Scotland or the UK. Do they teach English history in English schools. It is fascinating. Like Scottish history you could not make it up. You should try and read it some times. You might even understand that Culloden was the British army and not the English army, as some clowns on here ranted in the old forum. And how that came about. www.robertburns.org/works/344.shtmlukpoliticsdebate.boards.net/post/23539/threadExactly.
At Culloden the English did the fighting while the Argyles did the terrorising of the civilians.
As Jaydee has said, whenever the English wanted a dirty deed done in Scotland, there was always a Scot ready to do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Nov 27, 2022 13:14:15 GMT
No they didn't. A majority of upper class traitors did. There was mass rioting when the dirty deed was done Prior to the Union, Scotland was rife with famine. During this time Scotland tried to gain wealth and influence by acquiring a colony in Panama (Darien Scheme), and it failed. The huge loss of investment into this new Scottish colony left the entire Scottish lowlands in financial ruin. Neither, the Union of the Crowns or Jacobitism alternatives were viewed by Scottish parliamentarians as a way to secure peace and prosperity for Scotland like a union with England - and as it turned out some 300 years later, they were right. what a load of bollocks buccy. The old darien skintland myth . Christ you english do love a good bit of bullshit.
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Nov 27, 2022 13:35:53 GMT
See previous post. You do not even understand the history of your own nation. Far less Scotland or the UK. Do they teach English history in English schools. It is fascinating. Like Scottish history you could not make it up. You should try and read it some times. You might even understand that Culloden was the British army and not the English army, as some clowns on here ranted in the old forum. And how that came about. www.robertburns.org/works/344.shtmlukpoliticsdebate.boards.net/post/23539/threadExactly.
At Culloden the English did the fighting while the Argyles did the terrorising of the civilians.
As Jaydee has said, whenever the English wanted a dirty deed done in Scotland, there was always a Scot ready to do it.
And there was me thinking it was the British army. Clearly they do not teach English history at English schools. By the way what English army are you on about at Culloden. . You do know or clearly do not. When did the Argyll's fight at Culloden. And again there was me thinking it was 93rd of Foot And at the time the Lowland Scot saw the Jacobite's in the same way as the IRA are seen to day. And as Borchester said. Like the Crimea The English were incapable of dealing with it. www.nam.ac.uk/explore/93rd-sutherland-highlanders-regiment-foot#:~:text=This%20Scottish%20infantry%20regiment%20was,(Argyll%20and%20Sutherland)%20Highlanders. |
|
|
|
Post by om15 on Nov 27, 2022 15:19:03 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Nov 27, 2022 16:00:00 GMT
You hoist yourself by your own petard om.
you point out above the original idea of union wss rejected by both scots and english merely twelve years before the union was passed. Clearly it was an unpopular idea , and desperate scots wanting a union doesnt stack up .
Scotland had already established a trading company of scotland in 1693 to africa and the west indies , something that the english couldnt abide , in terms of competition. By 1704 , when scotlands parliament passed he act of security meaning we could elect whoever we wished as annes successor , this greatly alarmed the english parliament who thought the union of the crowns was now on the verge of being torn up , and sent daniel defoe north to explore political union.
He then as burns pointed out in his parcel of rogues , bribed the scottish parliament into voting 110 for union and 69 against.
Defoe himself , writing in the history of union of great britian , in Edinburgh in 1709 pointed out how the union was tremedously unpopualr among the scottish people. So what are you talking about you crack pot?
Reaction to the union was immdeiately met with massive resistance. In 1708 , a year later , an attempt was made to restore a stuart to the throne with the explicit condition of ending the year old union. The earl of mar , formerly a prominent supporter of the union raised the standard for the stuarts and scottish indy against britain in 1715 .
The year before lord seafield a promient mover for union , then proposed scotlands first home rule bill in 1714 . for the first 120 years of union , there was mass uprising and armed rebellions.
So much for thethe desperate picture you try and paint of scotland wanting union. Face it om. No one wants you mate.
"I have often said to myself,
what are the advantages Scotland
reaps from this so called Union,
that can counterbalance the
annihilation if her independence
and her very name."
Robert Burns
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Nov 27, 2022 16:02:53 GMT
You had to bribe both the irish and scottish parliaments into union , which proved massivley unpopualr both in your own nation and ours , with mass armed uprisings and war fare for centuries , and wales is the best laugh. Even the english administrators in wales didnt even know the london parliament had passed an act of union .
im looking forward though to rejoining the true , decent union of friendly countires when we rejoin the EU.
|
|
|
|
Post by om15 on Nov 27, 2022 17:11:34 GMT
Not even Jaydee could come out with a cracker like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Nov 27, 2022 17:30:20 GMT
He then as burns pointed out in his parcel of rogues , bribed the scottish parliament into voting 110 for union and 69 against.
The Division on Article 1 was very important don't you think T? The Squadrone, many of whom received payments from the equivalent, voted to a man for Union. Had they stuck with their original, anti Union, stance the pro Unionists would have lost. If that had happened, who knows what the outcome would have been. A bit of what iffery there don't you know! Article 1 was passed by 116 votes to 83. A result which shows the pivotal role played by the 24 SQ members (Details from PWJ Riley "The Union of England and Scotland" 1978) |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Nov 27, 2022 17:46:21 GMT
He then as burns pointed out in his parcel of rogues , bribed the scottish parliament into voting 110 for union and 69 against.
The Division on Article 1 was very important don't you think T? The Squadrone, many of whom received payments from the equivalent, voted to a man for Union. Had they stuck with their original, anti Union, stance the pro Unionists would have lost. If that had happened, who knows what the outcome would have been. A bit of what iffery there don't you know! Article 1 was passed by 116 votes to 83. A result which shows the pivotal role played by the 24 SQ members (Details from PWJ Riley "The Union of England and Scotland" 1978) Cheers moray.
Had the attempt at union been voted down , it would have meant invasion. As we know the english army was massed at the border and english navy prepared in case it was a no vote.
i have heard some cac about the act of union in my time , but i think oms claim scotland was desperate for union really is cloud cuckoo land stuff.
all that 120 years worth of post union armed risings , home rule bills after home rule bills , unionists turning anti union and so on was just a big misunderstanding.
lmfao.
im on the lookout for a good scottish history book for christmas .
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Nov 27, 2022 17:47:16 GMT
Not even Jaydee could come out with a cracker like that. what do you think om. Scotlands fellow europeans rising up in our support for independence.
|
|
