 |
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.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Maol.Chaluim
'Our Scotland' = 2nd Job!
Joined: 18 Sep 2005
Posts: 418
Location: Glaschu
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:12 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Anthropos wrote: | | The only thing Scotland lost was control of Foreign policy... |
.. also monetary and economic policy, with the obvious implications that has for control of many aspects of domestic policy.
_________________
The revolution will be live. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Babygael
Ready For Afterlife!
Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 2670
Location: Bajan land
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Anthropos ye'd dae better spittin' in the wind!! Not mentioning that pathetic excuse  of a ermhighlander!!! Can you imagine if the real macoy's were to mysteriously return!! You'd be TOAST BABY!!!
_________________
Pict Quine.
Here is where I come to water my roots. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aventinian
'Our Scotland' Fossil
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 4416
Location: Broadcasting From An Anonymous Location Within the United Kingdom.
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Avatar wrote: | | Yeah, its a bit like claiming you have free will with someone holding a gun to your head and telling you to sign all your money over to them. Conqured we were. |
So all the parliamentarians who'd held ideological positions that were pro-union since the Glorious Revolution and before were just doing so because of some perceived gun at their head.
And the hugely obvious benefits of union were not apparent to anybody in Scotland.
Face it, the only reason that anyone was anti-Union in 1707 were bizarre concerns about law and religion that never arose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthropos
I Love 'Our Scotland'
Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Posts: 323
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 11:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Maol.Chaluim wrote: | | Anthropos wrote: | | The only thing Scotland lost was control of Foreign policy... |
.. also monetary and economic policy, with the obvious implications that has for control of many aspects of domestic policy. |
If you are going to enter into a free trade area comprised of Scotland, England and the English colonies, then logically it will follow that you will not have control over the currency.
As for economic policy, Scottish and English economic policies were the same: make money, so it is really a non issue.
Of course if things hadn’t worked out then the union could have harmed Scotland economically, but in fact the opposite was true and after a few decades where nothing much happened the money started rolling in from the tobacco trade, which was then reinvested in other emerging industries with the result that Scotland had the fastest rate of economic growth in Europe .
In the 18th century Scots were a judicious and enterprising people who went out and took the opportunities the world offered. Contrast that with the bunch of pathetic whingers today pretending to be conquered.
| Babygael wrote: | | Anthropos ye'd dae better spittin' in the wind!! Not mentioning that pathetic excuse of a ermhighlander!!! Can you imagine if the real macoy's were to mysteriously return!! You'd be TOAST BABY!!! |
 Uh hu, meanwhile back in the real world………………………
_________________
Anthropos ikane prophasis eis to dustukhein |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott2006
I Love 'Our Scotland'
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 308
Location: Outside Glasgow
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
On the Scots language - it's been almost completely dead since before the age of the wireless radio and BBC English being given its paramount place in pronounciation of the King's and Queen's English.
The literary version of the Scots language exists in societies that promote it and obscure PhDs that propound it. Most school children nowadays get some Burns or local poetry about once a year if in primary education and outwith that they'd be lucky to have it discussed for an hour or two throughout their entire mandatory education.
We mostly now speak English with an accent, have the occasional sets of words that exist at local levels that add a bit of colour to the language but doesn't challenge the English language as spoken in the media in any serious instances outside of the bamery that was Rab C. Nesbitt for its portrayal of a corrupted working class Glaswegian pastiche or the Doric speaking by one actress after a fashion in River City.
On the other points about economic benefits of Scottish membership of the British trading system and Empire after the Union of 1707: from the 1750s or 1760s until the First World War it was probably in the interests of the Scottish economy to be an active participant in the trade and exploitation of resources from poorer colonies to see a certain level of prosperity enjoyed by the Scottish population in varying degrees of success.
This still leaves the periods of time from 1707 to the events of 1745 when large sections of Scottish opinion varied markedly from the that of the limited franchise Scottish Parliament and its successor again limited franchise elected Scottish members of the British Parliament in both Houses of Parliament.
The question arises by what authority can a sovereign parliament (with sovereignty residing with the people ultimately) that boasts it speaks for only a few thousand out of a population of over 1 million have the right to vote itself out of existance?
A majority of the Scottish people were never asked if they wanted to lose their parliament.
Today that same question has never been asked of the Scottish people at any time over the three centuries that have elapsed... I hope one day it can be put in a referendum to the Scottish people highlighting the differences to the limited remit of the present parish council compared Labour&LibDem powered Scottish Parliament.
_________________
Scotland deserves a First rate Parliament for a First rate People
The Scottish Parliamentarians who voted for Treaty of Union in 1706 and signed away Independence had been voted for by less than 2% of the Scottish population |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aventinian
'Our Scotland' Fossil
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 4416
Location: Broadcasting From An Anonymous Location Within the United Kingdom.
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The question arises by what authority can a sovereign parliament (with sovereignty residing with the people ultimately) that boasts it speaks for only a few thousand out of a population of over 1 million have the right to vote itself out of existance? |
The ways of the age, I suppose. The idea of sovereignty resting with the people is a very overstated concept, particularly in Scotland. Quite simply, the Crown in Parliament was sovereign, before the Union and after, with some minor restrictions.
| Quote: | | A majority of the Scottish people were never asked if they wanted to lose their parliament. |
And absolutely no Scottish people were ever asked if they wanted to create it, nor was anyone from the previous kingdoms that existed here asked if they wanted to form part of Scotland - instead they were subjects of royal intermarriage, invasion, ethnic cleansing and so forth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Babygael
Ready For Afterlife!
Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 2670
Location: Bajan land
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
You Aventinian, give your support to the biggest racists EVER, the brit empire!!
How dare you call anyone a racists????
you make me barf!!
You are either are a Scotsman, or you are not!
You have untill MAY to make up your mind!!
_________________
Pict Quine.
Here is where I come to water my roots. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Avatar
I need ma own bl**dy forum!
Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Posts: 1214
Location: Dùn Eideann
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | So all the parliamentarians who'd held ideological positions that were pro-union since the Glorious Revolution and before were just doing so because of some perceived gun at their head.
|
Ah yes, typical Brit nat fantasy. Of course the formation of the UK was an ideological event which ocurred in order to spread civilisation throughout the world, teaching quaint little natives how to use forks and wipe their arse
| Quote: | | And the hugely obvious benefits of union were not apparent to anybody in Scotland. |
Im sure the benefits were felt eventually, im also sure the buses ran on time in Nazi France too. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that things are not that black and white - being conquered or even living under an occupation force isnt going to be an entirely negative experience.
_________________
"Quite simply, Labour have been caught red-handed so often that no-one believes a word they say any more." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aventinian
'Our Scotland' Fossil
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 4416
Location: Broadcasting From An Anonymous Location Within the United Kingdom.
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Babygael wrote: | | You Aventinian, give your support to the biggest racists EVER, the brit empire!! |
The British Empire itself has actually been a force for good in that regard, we were one of the first nations to stop slavery and went to great expense to police the ban on the slave trade. There's a huge history of progressive actions, fights for the benefits of others and so forth. I certainly doubt you'd be saying this had you been a Jewish or French person in Europe, being liberated under the Union Jack.
Anyway, when did I ever say I support the British Empire. It's such a broad spectrum, it's like saying I support an individual: it has many different characteristics, many mistakes from which it has had to learn and so forth. I suppose I support myself, it doesn't mean that I take pride in everything I have done.
It's a ridiculous notion that I have to support everything a government has done. I agree with some of the notions of imperialism put forward by a few of its intellectual advocates, that is all.
| Quote: | | How dare you call anyone a racists???? |
I am not a racist myself, but I certainly think you are. What else would you call this bizarre obsession with putting down some supposed enemy in "the English" and blaming them for everything that goes wrong?
| Quote: | You are either are a Scotsman, or you are not!
You have untill MAY to make up your mind!! |
I'm not in your eyes, I know that, but I don't care because I think you something of a fool. But yes, I have a Scottish identity - I'm not particularly proud of it and it doesn't matter to me a great deal.
| Avatar wrote: | | Ah yes, typical Brit nat fantasy. Of course the formation of the UK was an ideological event which ocurred in order to spread civilisation throughout the world, teaching quaint little natives how to use forks and wipe their arse |
I was actually thinking more in terms of retaining the protestant succession, preventing European invasion, allowing for wider international trade and the like. It was a very ideological thing for many parliamentarians of the time, have a look at some of their recorded speeches. Unless there were a great many cynical and barefaced liars at the time, I doubt you can deny that they had a belief in the Union.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | And the hugely obvious benefits of union were not apparent to anybody in Scotland. |
Im sure the benefits were felt eventually, im also sure the buses ran on time in Nazi France too. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that things are not that black and white - being conquered or even living under an occupation force isnt going to be an entirely negative experience. |
[/quote]
Scotland was never conquered and never lived under an occupation force though, in fact there were very few drawbacks to Union. A remoteness of power perhaps, which was more apparent in the days before transport was easy and news spread so freely. Aside from that, there were so many positives to the Scottish people that it is difficult to ignore the idealists who opted for it. But of course, there will always be the fundamentalists who simply chant 'bought and sold for English gold'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Avatar
I need ma own bl**dy forum!
Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Posts: 1214
Location: Dùn Eideann
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I was actually thinking more in terms of retaining the protestant succession, preventing European invasion, allowing for wider international trade and the like. It was a very ideological thing for many parliamentarians of the time, have a look at some of their recorded speeches. Unless there were a great many cynical and barefaced liars at the time, I doubt you can deny that they had a belief in the Union. |
Of course there were a few who did believe in the union, and even if we accept that that belief stemmed from an ideological perspective, the majority of the other parliamentarians were bribed/bullied.
| Quote: | | Scotland was never conquered and never lived under an occupation force though, in fact there were very few drawbacks to Union. A remoteness of power perhaps, which was more apparent in the days before transport was easy and news spread so freely. Aside from that, there were so many positives to the Scottish people that it is difficult to ignore the idealists who opted for it. But of course, there will always be the fundamentalists who simply chant 'bought and sold for English gold'. |
In 1653 there was an occupation force I believe, granted it was before the union of parliaments. Anyway my point is that Scotland was conquered, not perhaps in the obvious way of an army invading and annexing the territory. If we take a modern day example of say Iran and Iraq, now say Iran want to secure all that area and increase their influence, also a few parliamentarians in the Iraq government are Iranian sympathisers. Iran bribes the rest of the parliamentarians and puts an army on the border to threaten the rest. The Iraqi government then votes itself out of existence because they cant win a war and their country is really poor and in chaos. Now as far as I can see that would still be Iran conquering Iraq.
What im saying is that Just because that went well for maybe 200 years doesn't rewrite history to make it sound more favourable.
_________________
"Quite simply, Labour have been caught red-handed so often that no-one believes a word they say any more." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aventinian
'Our Scotland' Fossil
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 4416
Location: Broadcasting From An Anonymous Location Within the United Kingdom.
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Avatar wrote: | | Of course there were a few who did believe in the union, and even if we accept that that belief stemmed from an ideological perspective, the majority of the other parliamentarians were bribed/bullied. |
I'd disagree with that perspective. In fact the contrary is pretty much the conclusion of that recent book by Christopher Whatley.
Equally however, opportunism was by no means reserved to the Unionists as a read of this demonstrate: http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=845972004
| Quote: | | In 1653 there was an occupation force I believe, granted it was before the union of parliaments. |
Yes, indeed, I was meaning after. But even then, it was not an occupying force as such, it had a good deal of support north of the border (as much as it did south of it anyway) and it was a result of a series of events of which we were very much involved in.
| Quote: | Anyway my point is that Scotland was conquered, not perhaps in the obvious way of an army invading and annexing the territory. If we take a modern day example of say Iran and Iraq, now say Iran want to secure all that area and increase their influence, also a few parliamentarians in the Iraq government are Iranian sympathisers. Iran bribes the rest of the parliamentarians and puts an army on the border to threaten the rest. The Iraqi government then votes itself out of existence because they cant win a war and their country is really poor and in chaos. Now as far as I can see that would still be Iran conquering Iraq.
What im saying is that Just because that went well for maybe 200 years doesn't rewrite history to make it sound more favourable. |
The English army was not threating the Scots to vote through the Union. In fact, they were there for maintaining civil order on the command of Scots.
You can hardly blame the conditions of Scotland as being the sole reason for Union - it was damn near inevitable post-1688 in my opinion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Avatar
I need ma own bl**dy forum!
Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Posts: 1214
Location: Dùn Eideann
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Yes, indeed, I was meaning after. But even then, it was not an occupying force as such, it had a good deal of support north of the border |
You usually find that occupying armies will have good levels of support from people in their occupied territory.
Thats an interesting read.
| Quote: | | The English army was not threating the Scots to vote through the Union. In fact, they were there for maintaining civil order on the command of Scots. |
Ive never heard that before.
_________________
"Quite simply, Labour have been caught red-handed so often that no-one believes a word they say any more." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Corby Boy
'Our Scotland' = 2nd Job!
Joined: 12 Oct 2006
Posts: 421
Location: South of Hadrian's Wall
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Scotland has never been conquered. Take Billabla's point about the blockading, but countries have held out despite threats of invasion and blockade.
So, no Scotland has never been conquered militarily, unlike that of Wales (unfortunately) or militarily colonised in part like Ireland.
Bought and sold by self serving (Scottish) autocrats who could only see £ signs offered by the English to secure their northern border - that's a different matter. In some respects that's even worse.
But as a nation the Scots have been too tough a nut to crack militarily and that is something to be proud. Wallace and Bruce would be turning in their graves to think otherwise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scotslanguage
Finding Ma' Way
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| For information about the Scots language visit www.scotslanguage.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aventinian
'Our Scotland' Fossil
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 4416
Location: Broadcasting From An Anonymous Location Within the United Kingdom.
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Corby Boy wrote: | Scotland has never been conquered. Take Billabla's point about the blockading, but countries have held out despite threats of invasion and blockade.
So, no Scotland has never been conquered militarily, unlike that of Wales (unfortunately) or militarily colonised in part like Ireland. |
Norman Conquest?
| Quote: | Bought and sold by self serving (Scottish) autocrats who could only see £ signs offered by the English to secure their northern border - that's a different matter. In some respects that's even worse.
|
Ah, but I think that was bluntly disproven by old Christopher Whatley a good while ago. Many had a firmly ideological basis for their views - to be frank, the benefits in 1707 were overwhelming and obvious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthropos
I Love 'Our Scotland'
Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Posts: 323
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aventinian wrote: | | Corby Boy wrote: | Scotland has never been conquered. Take Billabla's point about the blockading, but countries have held out despite threats of invasion and blockade.
So, no Scotland has never been conquered militarily, unlike that of Wales (unfortunately) or militarily colonised in part like Ireland. |
Norman Conquest? |
The Normans only conquered England, not Scotland. The only time Scotland was conquered was by Oliver Cromwell in the 17th Century, and the Protectorate period was not very long.
_________________
Anthropos ikane prophasis eis to dustukhein |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jimbo
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 18 Feb 2007
Posts: 799
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anthropos wrote: | | Aventinian wrote: | | Corby Boy wrote: | Scotland has never been conquered. Take Billabla's point about the blockading, but countries have held out despite threats of invasion and blockade.
So, no Scotland has never been conquered militarily, unlike that of Wales (unfortunately) or militarily colonised in part like Ireland. |
Norman Conquest? |
The Normans only conquered England, not Scotland. The only time Scotland was conquered was by Oliver Cromwell in the 17th Century, and the Protectorate period was not very long. |
Also conquered but not subjugated by Longshanks & Co 1296-1306. Some may argue slightly longer, until such times perhaps that Bruce had asserted himself on the Scots throne.
Aventinian.
The Normans were brought here on the invitation of David1 who was on very friendly terms with his Norman/English neighbour. They did not come as conquerors of Scotland. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Corby Boy
'Our Scotland' = 2nd Job!
Joined: 12 Oct 2006
Posts: 421
Location: South of Hadrian's Wall
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Christopher Whatley or not, the fact of the matter was that the populace of Edinburgh at the time were trying to burn the doors down, because the union proposal was so unpopular.
Fletcher of Saltoun was not one for being bought and sold.
Bottom line some in the Scots Parly were in favour some were not. A small majority carried it. The benefits were not overwhelming appreciated by any means. Intimidation from down south was the most overwhelming factor at the time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aventinian
'Our Scotland' Fossil
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 4416
Location: Broadcasting From An Anonymous Location Within the United Kingdom.
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Corby Boy wrote: | Christopher Whatley or not, the fact of the matter was that the populace of Edinburgh at the time were trying to burn the doors down, because the union proposal was so unpopular.
| Quote: | | Fletcher of Saltoun was not one for being bought and sold. |
|
Fletcher was a murderer on the run from the law, not to mention that he actually argued in favour of union when the holder of the Crown more suited him. But I suppose he's a better role model for Nationalists than your most hated apostate: the Duke of Hamilton.
Anyway, it doesn't take the whole population of Edinburgh to start a large riot. I accept that, at this point, the union was unpopular - but so what? That doesn't mean that the Parliamentarians from Scotland were somehow corrupted.
Intimidation from down south? I remind you it was the English Commissioners of Union that Queen Anne had to sack for being hostile to the concept, not the Scottish ones.
Last edited by Aventinian on Tue Mar 06, 2007 4:15 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aventinian
'Our Scotland' Fossil
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 4416
Location: Broadcasting From An Anonymous Location Within the United Kingdom.
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jimbo wrote: | Aventinian.
The Normans were brought here on the invitation of David1 who was on very friendly terms with his Norman/English neighbour. They did not come as conquerors of Scotland. |
That's interesting, I've been looking into it since you wrote that and I have to say I never imagined the Normanisation of Scotland was quite so cordial. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
