| Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites. |
| mairead |
Mary. Queen of ScotsOn this day in 1542, Queen Mary Stewart was murdered on the orders of Elizabeth 1st of England |
||||||||
| Babygael |
I have a confession, I admire Queen Elizabeth 1 as I do Maggie Thatcher.
I know this sounds weird comming from me but I do respect strong and comitted leaders for their cause. Scotland needs leaders who have that level of passion and ability....now! |
||||||||
| mairead |
Babygael, I am surprised to learn that you respected Maggie Thatcher, the woman who hated Scotland and the Scots, and who did so much to bring our country to it's knees. She destroyed our industries.
I respect strong women too, but I will never respect anyone, male or female who tries to destroy the land of my birth. All dictators are strong that's why they become dictators but most of them are evil megalomaniacs and she certainly was. Thank God the Tories woke up in time and got rid of her. The Thatcher years in Scotland were the most impoverished for many in a long long time. |
||||||||
| Highlander |
|
||||||||
| Anthropos |
She didn't destroy our industries, she simply refused to keep propping up the corpse. |
||||||||
| mairead |
Nonsense. | ||||||||
| Anthropos |
Yeah good reply Mairead 
Now what you really meant was: "Sir, your above posting does not concur with my irrational prejudices about Scotland being a victim nation; however my almost total ignorance about matters concerning Scottish economic history is such that it is the best reply I can give." 
|
||||||||
| Wolf of Badenoch |
Tae hell wi Thatcher.........aye anyways back tae the original point,its a pity ra heidsman stopped wi Mary Stewart. 
|
||||||||
| Avatar |
You are a tad obsessed with assuming other people to be self-pitying "victims"
|
||||||||
| mairead |
What a patronising and silly reply Anthropos. I am surpised at you. I do not perceive Scotland as a 'victim nation' just one that has been well screwed over by the other half of this so called union.
Having spent many years working in close contact with the tragic results of Thatcher's policies in Scotland, I actually know what I am talking about. Surprisingly enough, I was one of the fools who thought she would be good for this country and voted her into power. I learn quickly though and never did again. |
||||||||
| Anthropos |
Not at all Avatar, but unfortunately there is a lot of it going about. Of course if people can justify it then fine, I have no problem with debate, but when it is merely historical ignorance and prejudice I think it fair to challenge it. To say that Scottish history is merely a catalogue of abuses at the hands of the English is utter nonsense, but some people clearly do believe it, and there are others who perpetuate blatant falsehoods to try and support that ideology, and of course these forums are a magnet for them. |
||||||||
| Anthropos |
My apologies Mairead for any offence cause, my response was not justified. However the single word ‘nonsense’ did not really give me too much to go on, but I should have asked for clarification rather than responding with snide sarcasm.
Are you not contradicting yourself a bit here? I mean when the going was good and Anglo-Scottish Imperialism bestrode the world like a colossus you didn’t hear many people complaining. Of course Empires fall, natural resource run out, competitor nations overtake you, but to what extent can this be said to result from Margaret Thatcher’s tenure in Downing Street? She never caused any of those things. Your point does seem to imply that if the union is baring fruit it is acceptable.
Human sympathy is perfectly admirable, and it is not something I am devoid of, but at the same time it shouldn’t eclipse reason. What about the Scottish business class, should they not bear some of the blame for failing to develop our native industries and for over concentration in the heavy industries when they should have been moving into consumer durables? And what about the Scottish political class who for years were happy to see Scotland turned into a low skill branch plant economy for American companies? I don’t think you can just say its all Margaret Thatcher’s doing.
Perhaps she appealed to your inner Calvanist? All a bit after my time I’m afraid so I can only concern myself with the history. |
||||||||
| mairead |
Yes Anthropos I agree with what you say re the others who have subscribed to Scotland's failing industry, but Thatcher began the rot and carried it on for many years.
By the way, Is anyone aware that of £250million that Scotland pays annually in TV Licence fees, only £150m comes back to the country, and of that nearly £100m goes back to the BBC to purchase programmes. Not relevant to the topic I know, but interesting all the same. |
||||||||
| Babygael |
Miread, just a wind up!
Actually I believe I said I respected (these two) strong and commited leaders for THEIR cause, not nescessairly MY cause!!
I certainly wouldn't trust them in a million years though!! I can admire the "auld enemy" from time to time can't I? When back in the day England and scotland had a truce, the "good" Sir James Douglas went to the crusades as you know very well. As he was leaving a large crowd gathered to see him off for he was a great man and warrior. In that crowd were English Knights who also went were there to get a glimpse of the man. I'll bet most of them would have loved to have been the one to have "despatched" The Douglas during the wars but that doesn't mean they didn't admire him. Just because I don't agree with someone,doesn't mean I have to dislike them. |
||||||||
| Babygael |
Apologies for the double posts! Anyway Miread you say Thatcher destroyed the Industries? While I was led to believe it was the Unions that were destroying the Industries with the constant strikes and demands. Indeed I was given the impression that Moscow had a hand in there somewhere.
But what do I know! All water under the bridge anyway. |
||||||||
| Anthropos |
Neither M. Thatcher nor the TU's destroyed the heavy industries, in the case of Coal, because Britain was the first country to industrialise its coal resources were exhausted (or at least its most accessible coal) while countries which industrialised later had largely untouched resources. Now that is neither the fault of Thatcher or TU's, it was just a resource that became depleted. The problem in Scotland was over concentration in the heavy industries, and the fact that the industries were tied together. So for example Scottish shipbuilding used Scottish steel, so if demand for ships fell then demand for steel fell too. The other important factor was the loss of Empire - Scottish industries were geared towards the production of capital goods (ships, trains, bridges etc) that were exported to the colonies, so when that market disappeared Scottish industries were left to compete with other nations like Germany who were cheaper and more efficient. The demand for replacement capital goods in the post war period kept the Scottish economy buoyant for a while, but it couldn't - and didn't - last. As for Moscow having a hand, well it is fairly reasonable to assume they would take an interest in such matters, but they played no role of any significance. However in the post Maclean, Burgess & Philby era there was quite a bit of paranoia, if Moscow could recruit such solidly establishment men like them, then Trade Unionists would be easy meat. |
||||||||
| Babygael |
I wonder where would Scotland be if we had someone like the Iron lady on our side???
She would have acheived Independence for Scotland, she had courage and was pure Iron!!! She wuid hev pit those southern ...kers in their place one time! Sadly, she wis engerlish!!! |
||||||||
| Blackleaf |
She wasn't murdered. She was executed by the Queen of England, Elizabeth I, for treason because she plotted against her. She also may have murdered her husband..... Mary Queen of Scots 1542 - 1587 
Mary, Queen of Scots is perhaps the best known figure in Scotland's history. Her life provided tragedy and romance, more dramatic than any legend. She was born in 1542 a week before her father, King James V of Scotland, died. Mary was sent to France in 1548 to be the bride of the Dauphin, the young French prince, in order to secure a Catholic alliance against England. In 1561, after the Dauphin, still in his teens, died, Mary returned to Scotland, a young and beautiful widow. Scotland at this time was in the throes of the Reformation and a widening Protestant - Catholic split. A Protestant husband for Mary seemed the best chance for stability. Mary fell passionately in love with Henry, Lord Darnley, but it was not a success. Darnley was a weak man and soon became a drunkard as Mary ruled entirely alone and gave him no real authority in the country. Darnley became jealous of Mary's secretary and favourite, David Riccio. He, together with others, murdered Riccio in front of Mary in Holyrood House. She was six months pregnant at the time. Her son, the future King James VI of Scotland and I of England, was baptised in the Catholic faith in Stirling Castle. This caused alarm amongst the Protestants. Lord Darnley, Mary's husband, later died in mysterious circumstances in Edinburgh, when the house he was lodging in was blown up one night in February 1567. His body was found in the garden of the house after the explosion, but he had been strangled! Mary had now become attracted to James Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell, and rumours abounded at Court that she was pregnant by him, Bothwell was accused of Darnley's murder but was found not guilty. Shortly after he was acquitted, Mary and Bothwell were married. The Lords of Congregation did not approve of Mary's liason with Bothwell and she was imprisoned in Leven Castle where she gave birth to still-born twins. Bothwell meanwhile had bid Mary goodbye and fled to Dunbar. She never saw him again. He died in Denmark, insane, in 1578. 
In May 1568 Mary escaped from Leven Castle. She gatheried together a small army but was defeated at Langside by the Protestant faction. Mary then fled to England. In England she became a political pawn in the hands of Queen Elizabeth I and was imprisoned for 19 years in various castles in England. Mary was found to be plotting against Elizabeth; letters in code, from her to others, were found and she was deemed guilty of treason. She was taken to Fotheringhay Castle and executed in 1587. It is said that after her execution, when the executioner raised the head for the crowd to see, it fell and he was left holding only Mary's wig. Mary's son became James I and VI of Scotland after Elizabeth's death in 1603. http://www.historic-uk.com/Histor...otland-History/MaryQueenScots.htm ------------------ She seemed like a nasty piece of work. |
||||||||
| One O'Clock Gun |
and pray tell us Oxford don, what was she plotting?
Some would argue that there was various reasons for her being killed- religion, wars abroad etc,. What is your opinion Professor? "She seemed like a nasty piece of work" get a grip. What? In your extensive research on this subject? She seemed like a nasty piece of work according to this random, unaccredited web-site that I found on google, possibly. Coming up next on the blackleaf channel- Why Portsmouth is set to become the new Venice in 2015. That's before we take a look at why Scotland is rubbish...stay tuned! |
||||||||
| Pip |
She was set up by Walsingham, but she did show that she was eager to go along with the non-existent conspiracy. She was just out of her depth with any kind of statecraft. | ||||||||
| Jimbo |
Blackleaf wrote...
She wasn't murdered. She was executed by the Queen of England, Elizabeth I, for treason because she plotted against her. She also may have murdered her husband..... <quote. She seemed like a nasty piece of work. <quote. This is the kind of non-history type history that I would expect to be taught to primary 5 pupils by a propagandist working on behalf of a government trying to assimilate children into their system from an early age (Your history is not worth reading. Let me tell you about Agincourt, type of thing). Not the kind of thing you would expect from someone who pretends to a serious historical bent. Forty five years of history wrapped up in 3 or 4 paragraphs. Wonderful. Antonia Fraser could have saved herself 712 pages and just left it to you to pass on to us the full story summarised by the comment 'She seemed like a nasty piece of work.' You made this assumption after a few paragraphs? Great work. Try reading the full story That Mary was naive and lacked statecraft there is probably no doubt. She was brought up in the French court wrapped in cotton wool and brought out from time to time to be used like a puppet from an early age by unscrupulous courtiers and politicians of the time to further their own agendas then sent back to her frivolities until she was needed again. She came home to Scotland for more of the same from men inured in statecraft and intrigue. That she was set up by Elizabeth, Walsingham and Co there is no doubt. Like Wallace, she was killed out of convenience to save further embarrassment and/or problems for the English crown. Like Wallace, the charge (always a favourite of the English in medieval times) was treason. The Oxford Dictionary defines treason as 'Violation by subject of allegiance to sovereign.' Mary was not Elizabeth's subject. Elizabeth was not Mary's sovereign. She naively went to Elizabeth for safety and was treated in the same manner as by the French and the Scots, a political pawn, to be used until no longer useful then discarded. Scotland has a long and fascinating history and this kind of crap belittles it. So, thanks for the history lesson but I prefer the real thing. |
||||||||