 |
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 |
SLG Born Again..........and still Scottish!

Joined: 16 Sep 2005 Posts: 5515 Location: Dùn Eideann
|
Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 2:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aventinian wrote: | | SLG wrote: | | The essential unity of the British Isles was destroyed in 1921 with the establishment of the Irish Free State. Of course we are all linked together and of course Britain will continue to exist as an island. However, look at the Scandinavian countries? They manage to function very well together through the Nordic League without all needing to be ruled from Stockholm. In fact at present remaining part of Britain prevents Scotland from having closer links with Eire. I totally agree that there is much in common between us all. Independence (for Scotland at least) would remove a lot of the bad blood, and allow us to cooperate with the other states of the British Isles as equals. In general Independence is a radical progressive step to try and solve some of the real problems we face in Scotland, not an attempt to put up barriers between neighbouring countries. It is IMO the Unionists who use more nationalist rhetoric (I.e. the one-nation Tories) than most Scottish nationalists. |
I think one-nation Tories are complete and utter tossers. Just as I imagine you believe the same about a few elements in the Nationalist movement. |
Sure, any mass movement attracts all sorts. But the Tories are one of only two parties that will ever be in power in the UK for the for seeable future, and the one-nation philosophy is common-place among them.
| Aventinian wrote: | | I don't think the simple co-operation ideal works. Look at the EU: 'ever closer union' is what was envisaged. I should point out that this does not mean ever closer centralisation. I don't want Britain to be ruled from London, just as I don't want Scotland to be ruled from Edinburgh, or Europe to be controlled by Brussels' regulations. I want things to work on the levels which things can be best accomplished at. |
This is where the EU project is failing and becoming un-popular. People across the EU want cooperation however they don't want centralised governance. It seems to me that the relationship you UK to have with the rest of the EU is the same as I would like Scotland to have with the rest of the EU (including England (or the rump-UK should it remain together)). But there are still certain functions of the nation state, and I want them to be repatriated to Edinburgh, and London has displayed contempt for them too often. I too want to see much more devolution of power from Edinburgh to the regions and below, but the Tories and Labour are centralising parties who will never accept electoral reform. Only in an independent Scotland will there be any chance of the further devolution downstream that I would like to see (in my lifetime anyway).
| Aventinian wrote: | | That may mean the end to 'sovereign statehood' - so in the end, you may have something close to your dream. However I don't think nations forming into countries is a positive step towards this ideal. |
I can understand where you are coming from. However I tend to the more practical view that the world of nation states in not going to disappear any time soon. Scotland has problems that we need to be addressing now. Westminster will not deliver, and a Holyrood cannot deliver with it's limited powers, so we need change.
I have also read it suggested that your model for the end of the nations state will only come about when the large multi-national states of the world break down into smaller units, then we can rebuild the institutions that bind them together in a much more ecumenical way. This has happened in the USSR. Spain, Canada and the UK are all under pressure. I hope others will follow suit.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
at the edge Finding Ma' Way
Joined: 09 Dec 2005 Posts: 2
|
Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| simple answer is not to refer to them as unionist, but call them what they are British Nationalist |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Aventinian 'Our Scotland' Fossil

Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 4280 Location: Broadcasting From An Anonymous Location Within the United Kingdom.
|
Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SLG wrote: | | Could I also ask you, are you Scottish and do you live here? Of course, even if you are not, you are perfectly entitled to your opinions, but it does help put them into context. |
Yes on both counts.
| Quote: | | Ah well that is only if you consider all MPs to be British and to treat all citizens and regions equally. I don't believe this to be the case and many English MPs will not act in Scotland's best interests where it might have a negative effect on England, even if it is the best solution for the UK as a whole, just as there are Scottish MPs who would always put Scotland first. Just because there is no English nationalist party, doesn't mean that there is any shortage of English nationalists in Westminster. And when 85% of the parliament are English this can lead to the bad governance of Scotland. This attitude is not going to change any time soon and so the only logical option is for Scotland to be ruled by Scots. |
I think a level of idealism is necessary for a democracy to function.
After all, you could point out that a huge majority of Parliament are white and middle/upper class. Does this affect their moral legitimacy? Well, some may argue that it does, but it is the only way we can do things... the same, after all, applies to judges and local councillors. Yet we still trust these systems to hopefully uphold the ideals of democracy and act in a measured and non-discriminatory way.
So long as the majority can dictate to the minority, this is how things will be. After all, in an independent Scotland can you really see the interests of the Highlands being put first when the central belt Labourites are planning their policies?
| Quote: | | I do agree with you when you say you want the 'most appropriate levels of government' and 'co-operation across national boundaries'. I however don't see a place for Westminster in that. Scotland is a perfect size of country for efficient governance based on most of the powers that are presently held at Westminster. I would hope that and independent Scotland would not be so centralised as the British state. I would definitely not want to see Scotland restrict, or even favour anglophone nations as you seem to suggest. |
I think you're wrong. There are many areas where things are better shared between these Isles (and yes, I would include southern Ireland in that) - Defence, for example. We managed to knock back the perfideous Hun so many times because we were a unified island with strong natural defences. I could give more examples, but I think you'll get the idea.
My comments on the Anglosphere were not intended to be restrictive as such. I'm merely acknowledging that our common legal systems, parliamentary systems etc make it easier to do things together. After all, I imagine it'd be easier to come to common ground with a Canadian when talking about, say, homogenising business law than it would be if you were talking to a Mongolian.
| Quote: | | I've travelled about Europe a fair bit and travelled a bit in America. I personally feel more at home in Scandinavia, and Western Europe than I did in America. I have also lived in England for a while and felt like a foreigner there. Large chunks of America are also becoming Spanish speaking as the first language and this is only going to continue. |
Interesting point. Well perhaps you are correct. I certainly don't want these exercises in co-operation to be forced, but a natural process. It'd certainly be interesting to see what would happen if this came about...
| Quote: | | Ok, so you are an idealist. Surely the present settlement must make you cringe. It is a fine example of bad governance and it will not change if it is left in the hands of Westminster. The only way to revitalise democracy in Scotland is to get out of the UK. Then we can start to look at how we can co-operate with the remainder of the UK, the EU and the rest of the world. Westminster is the status quo, the 'managing just fine' and we need out of it. |
I don't believe in breaking away from institutions for the sake of it.
One of the most striking passages that I can remember from all the books I have read in my life comes from the start of Hayek's Constitution of Liberty. To paraphrase very roughly from memory, it pointed out that men typically will try to start everything afresh rather than go to the trouble of understanding and bettering the present systems which have often been created on sound ideological grounds. This was his passionate defence of the west: to actually stand up for the ideals on which our states were founded rather than change them to submit to new ideals like Communism.
The present set up doesn't make me cringe. In fact, when I look at the UK Parliament, I see an amazing institution and one which is sadly debased with the support of the people it would better serve if its original ideals were upheld. Similarly when I look at the laws of this country, I am awe-struck by how complete the old institutional writers like Stair were in creating the laws of this country and the cringing tends to come when I realise how things have been changed in the name of 'progress'.
My idealism is more about seeing the good foundation behind things and trying to make them work like they should. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SLG Born Again..........and still Scottish!

Joined: 16 Sep 2005 Posts: 5515 Location: Dùn Eideann
|
Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2005 11:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aventinian wrote: | I think a level of idealism is necessary for a democracy to function.
After all, you could point out that a huge majority of Parliament are white and middle/upper class. Does this affect their moral legitimacy? Well, some may argue that it does, but it is the only way we can do things... the same, after all, applies to judges and local councillors. Yet we still trust these systems to hopefully uphold the ideals of democracy and act in a measured and non-discriminatory way.
So long as the majority can dictate to the minority, this is how things will be. After all, in an independent Scotland can you really see the interests of the Highlands being put first when the central belt Labourites are planning their policies? |
Well, one of the reasons I don't vote Tory or SSP is because I believe that they seek only to represent a certain class. I prefer my politicians to try and represent all their constituents to the best of their ability. In the same way I would like my government to represent the entire country to the best of their ability. I believe that nationalism exist amongst politicians from all the UK nations and as such the UK government will not govern Scotland in the best manner. I don't believe that regional identity works in the same way within Scotland. Scotland is a small country and most politicians are familiar with the whole country. I don't think that the Lab/LibDem executive at Holyrood can be accused of being too central belt focused. However, after independence, I hope that the powers of the local authorities will be increased.
| Aventinian wrote: | I think you're wrong. There are many areas where things are better shared between these Isles (and yes, I would include southern Ireland in that) - Defence, for example. We managed to knock back the perfideous Hun so many times because we were a unified island with strong natural defences. I could give more examples, but I think you'll get the idea.
My comments on the Anglosphere were not intended to be restrictive as such. I'm merely acknowledging that our common legal systems, parliamentary systems etc make it easier to do things together. After all, I imagine it'd be easier to come to common ground with a Canadian when talking about, say, homogenising business law than it would be if you were talking to a Mongolian. |
I'm sorry you think I'm wrong, because I agree about sharing the responsibility for defence among other things. However IMO the accountability needs to end with the Scottish people and that requires that the Scottish government negotiates a deal with the other governments of the Isles. At present if the UK armed forces are put to a use the Scottish people and politicians disagree with, then there is no comeback.
| Aventinian wrote: | I don't believe in breaking away from institutions for the sake of it.
One of the most striking passages that I can remember from all the books I have read in my life comes from the start of Hayek's Constitution of Liberty. To paraphrase very roughly from memory, it pointed out that men typically will try to start everything afresh rather than go to the trouble of understanding and bettering the present systems which have often been created on sound ideological grounds. This was his passionate defence of the west: to actually stand up for the ideals on which our states were founded rather than change them to submit to new ideals like Communism.
The present set up doesn't make me cringe. In fact, when I look at the UK Parliament, I see an amazing institution and one which is sadly debased with the support of the people it would better serve if its original ideals were upheld. Similarly when I look at the laws of this country, I am awe-struck by how complete the old institutional writers like Stair were in creating the laws of this country and the cringing tends to come when I realise how things have been changed in the name of 'progress'.
My idealism is more about seeing the good foundation behind things and trying to make them work like they should. |
What exactly were the original ideals of the UK? Are you referring to Scotland, England or the UK? As far as I'm concerned the UK was formed out of English expansionism and the selfish interest of a few individuals.
I think that it is in the best interests of Scotland and her people to be governed by a Scottish government. I am not blinded by nationalism. If I thought the UK served us well or could be reformed into the best form of government, I would accept that and work towards that. However IMO the UK is stagnating. Sometimes we have to accept the do need a radical changes and not be afraid to make them. I also believe that the break up of the UK will have a revitalising effect of the rest of the UK. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Aventinian 'Our Scotland' Fossil

Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 4280 Location: Broadcasting From An Anonymous Location Within the United Kingdom.
|
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 3:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| at the edge wrote: | | simple answer is not to refer to them as unionist, but call them what they are British Nationalist |
Nope. While I don't disagree it is possible to be a British Nationalist (despite what some people say about there not being a British nation. I see that as incredibly simplistic) I am not one. In fact, I am the complete opposite of a Nationalist, just as many (probably most) of the 'Unionists' in Scotland are.
More on the other points when I have some free time... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Niall Nationalist

Joined: 16 Sep 2005 Posts: 170 Location: Cairnbulg
|
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aventinian wrote: | | I don't believe there has ever been genocide in Scotland post-1707. And don't even try to bring in the Jacobite Rebellions - sedition would be put down in any country - and the Highland Clearances, which were the responsibility of Scottish nobles who simply wanted to make a bit more cash off of their land. |
A Charaid.
I posted a counter to your statement which you have chosen to ignore. Why? I am awaiting your answer and justification for your erroneous statement. In case you missed it, here is the original post:
| Quote: | You do not believe there has ever been genocide in Scotland? Sit down with open eyes and mind and read the following:
Culloden is a Name that rightly blackens the British state for the extreme cruelties of the troops under 'Butcher' Cumberland. A century later, Lord Rosebery the Liberal Prime Minister made a bleak statement in the House of Commons when discussion took place regarding awarding a battle honour 'Culloden' to regiments that took part in the battle. The Proposal was defeated when Lord Rosebery spoke Thus:
'No Blacker Bloodier page will be found in the history of any country than that which records the atrocities against a brave but vanquished enemy perpetrated at the command and under the eyes of a British monarch's son.'
To learn more, try this URL. (Read especially the aftermath)
http://www.queenofscots.co.uk/culloden/cull.html
There is also the attempt by the british Government to wipe out the Irish and Highland Scots through the use of Famine. Its a catalogue of a governemnt determined to wipe out the Celts forever. Would you like me to post a short history backed up by UK Government historical documents.
Yes there were many instances of genocide carried out by the British Government and far too many people like yourself prefer to stick their heads in the sand and ignore them. | '
I am waiting...........
S mise
Niall. _________________ Cha deanar duine glic ach air a chosd fheinn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Niall Nationalist

Joined: 16 Sep 2005 Posts: 170 Location: Cairnbulg
|
Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 10:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Aventinian, I am still waiting.........
Niall. _________________ Cha deanar duine glic ach air a chosd fheinn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SLG Born Again..........and still Scottish!

Joined: 16 Sep 2005 Posts: 5515 Location: Dùn Eideann
|
Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm sure he's thinking hard about his answer and will get back to you when he's ready Niall. I'm lookng forward to his response though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Niall Nationalist

Joined: 16 Sep 2005 Posts: 170 Location: Cairnbulg
|
Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A Charaid.
Don't hold your breath too long though....... I doubt very much if he will return, he's probably done some research and realised he's put a size 15 boot in his mouth.
'S Mise
Niall _________________ Cha deanar duine glic ach air a chosd fheinn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Aventinian 'Our Scotland' Fossil

Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 4280 Location: Broadcasting From An Anonymous Location Within the United Kingdom.
|
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 2:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ne’er before have I witnessed a group of people who rely more upon collective wishful thinking than the Scots nationalists…
Shockingly enough, towards the end of December, some of us have better things to do than argue about the Jacobite Risings on internet forums. Just to inform you in advance, I shall doubtless be absent from the computer on the 31st of this month and for the next few days following, for despite the best efforts of the “Scottish Executive” I shall be binge drinking and probably breaking a good few laws in the company of that alcoholic band of libertines that I call my friends and loved ones.
Now that we have dispensed with that public announcement, let us continue to your question. Despite what you may think, the actions on a battlefield will very rarely constitute genocide. While it may well be correct that a certain degree of cruelty was used to quell that sedition, you’ll be hard pressed to find a war where the established rules of engagement were followed to the letter. This was, by no one’s measure, genocide – or even anywhere close.
| SLG wrote: | | Well, one of the reasons I don't vote Tory or SSP is because I believe that they seek only to represent a certain class. I prefer my politicians to try and represent all their constituents to the best of their ability. In the same way I would like my government to represent the entire country to the best of their ability. I believe that nationalism exist amongst politicians from all the UK nations and as such the UK government will not govern Scotland in the best manner. I don't believe that regional identity works in the same way within Scotland. Scotland is a small country and most politicians are familiar with the whole country. I don't think that the Lab/LibDem executive at Holyrood can be accused of being too central belt focused. However, after independence, I hope that the powers of the local authorities will be increased. |
I believe they have indeed been accused of the very same.
Incidently, every Socialist (obviously not SSP) and Conservative administration elected in history has relied upon votes from those outwith the social classes most commonly associated with them.
To believe that people not from Scotland are naturally prejudiced towards its interests are to assume the entire structure of British and European politics are a sham. Personally, I feel a greater affinity with my village and county than I ever will with Scotland – I don’t believe that would ever preclude me from a life in politics.
I also would prefer local authority powers to be increased, however it was devolution which emaciated the councils in the first place. I believe that fundamentally the Scottish Executive will always (in respect to powers both above and below it) attempt to make itself far more important than it is. It seems to be a monster intent on eating its way through everything.
| Quote: | | I'm sorry you think I'm wrong, because I agree about sharing the responsibility for defence among other things. However IMO the accountability needs to end with the Scottish people and that requires that the Scottish government negotiates a deal with the other governments of the Isles. At present if the UK armed forces are put to a use the Scottish people and politicians disagree with, then there is no comeback. |
Why should there be? What’s so special about Scotland?
| Quote: | | What exactly were the original ideals of the UK? Are you referring to Scotland, England or the UK? As far as I'm concerned the UK was formed out of English expansionism and the selfish interest of a few individuals. |
I believe the UK, or rather the Kingdom of Great Britain, was founded out of mutual interest and the ideals of free trade.
Expansionism has never been an English or British characteristic. The former occupations of Scotland were driven by military necessity: ie, to present a united front against the princes of Europe with no ‘back door’. The British Empire was reluctantly entered into after the likes of the East India Company had already made their creation an effective necessity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Niall Nationalist

Joined: 16 Sep 2005 Posts: 170 Location: Cairnbulg
|
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Aventian a charaid.
So you have decided to skate round my question. What Cumberland did in the Highlands has long been recognised as GENOCIDE. Hundreds of thousands of Gaels (men Women and children )were either murdered or sold into slavery in the colonies. In those days Gaelic speaking Irish, Scots and Cymric speaking Welsh people were depicted in popular cartoons as Monkeys dressed up in human clothes.
This disparaging attitude was similar to the Nazi's depicting Jews as rats and sub-humans which inevitably led to 'The Final Solution.' This attitude also led to the British Government carrying out an act of genocide in Ireland by deliberately starving the Irish Gaels to death!
The revisionist History books have all blamed the Potato blight. I am not holding the present day population of England responsible or guilty of the crimes their past leaders committed, but rather to show the real dangers of regarding other races and Cultures as inferior (Sub Human) and therefore fit only for servitude or extinction.
Potato blight, 'phytophthora infestans', did spread from America to Europe in 1844, to England and then Ireland in 1845 but it didn't cause famine anywhere. Ireland did not starve for potatoes; it starved for food.
Ireland starved because its food, from 40 to 70 shiploads per day, was requisitioned without compensation at gunpoint by 12,000 British constables reinforced by the British militry, Warships, Excise vessels, Coast Guard and by 200,000 British soldiers (100,000 at any given moment) Thus, Britain seized from Ireland's producers tens of millions of head of livestock; tens of millions of tons of flour, grains, meat, poultry & dairy products; enough to sustain 18 million persons.
A typical example of this: In Belmullet, Co. Mayo the mission of 151 soldiers of the 49th Regiment was to guard a few tons of meal from the hands of the starving Townsfolk; its population falling from 237 to 105 between 1841 and 1851. Belmullet also lost its source of fish in January, 1849, when Britain's Coast Guard arrested its fleet of enterprising fishermen ten miles at sea in the act of offloading flour from a passing ship. They were sentenced to prison and their currachs (One man Coracle type Hide boats) were confiscated and burned.
Official British intent at the time is revealed by its actions and enactment's. When the European potato crop failed in 1844 and food prices rose, The british Government ordered 46 Regiments to Ireland ready to seize Irish foodstuffs to feed their English populace and maintain their economy. When blight hit the 1845 English potato crop the food removal regiments were already in Ireland, with orders to start.
The Times editorial of September 30, 1845, warned; 'In England the two main meals of a working man's day now consists of potatoes.' England's potato-dependence was excessive; recklessly. Grossly overpopulated relative to its food supply, England faced famine unless it could import vast amounts of alternative food. But it didn't grab merely Ireland's surplus food; or enough Irish food to save England.
However It took more; for profit and to exterminate the people of Ireland. Queen Victoria's economist, Nassau Senior in a secret memorandum, expressed his fear that existing policies 'will not kill more than one million Irish in 1848 and that will scarcely be enough to do much good.' (The Great Hunger; by Cecil Woodham-Smith; p. 373 (cap. xvii; sect. 3; pp. 1; penult. sentence).
When an eyewitness urged a stop to the genocide-in-progress, Lord Trevelyan replied: 'We must not complain of what we really want to obtain.' (Ibid.; p. 369.) Trevelyan insisted that all reports of starvation were exaggerated, until 1847. He then declared it ended and refused entry to the American food relief ship Sorciére. Thomas Carlyle; influential British essayist, wrote; 'Ireland is like a half-starved rat that crosses the path of an elephant. What must the elephant do? Squelch it - by heavens - squelch it.' '
Total Annihilation'; suggested The Times leader of September 2, 1846; and in 1848 its editorialists crowed 'A Celt will soon be as rare on the banks of the Shannon as the red man on the banks of Manhattan.' The immortal Society of Friends, the 'Quakers,' did all in their power to save lives. But in 1848 in the face of years of wilful Government interference, obstruction and resistance, they finally despaired and quit, upon learning that the Crown planned to perpetuate the genocide's pretext; the British claim of 'ownership' of Irish land..
Quakers refused to facilitate the genocide by pretending it was an act of nature. In the 1870s; too late; British laws were enacted allowing the Irish to buy back the land of which Britain had robbed them. Twice-yearly payments were extracted from Ireland's farmers until that 'debt' was paid off in the 1970s.
Ireland's diet, since prehistory, has been meat, dairy products, grains, fruit and vegetables; latterly supplemented by potatoes. Central to its ancient legends are its livestock, reaping hooks, flails, querns, and grain-kilns and -mills. The many Connaught grain-kilns and -mills shown on the Irish Ordnance Survey Map of 1837-1841 operated continually prior to, during the Starvation, and subsequently after it until the 1960s when they were still working. Local farmers dried and milled their grain - not potatoes - in them, and this oatmeal and flour were seized and exported by British forces.
The 'potato famine' Big Lie was underway and already denounced by John Mitchell in his United Irishman newspaper in 1847 (he was soon sent in chains to a Tasmanian death camp; but escaped). Fifty years later G.B. Shaw wrote in Man and Superman: 'Malone: 'My father died of starvation in Ireland in the Black '47. Maybe you've heard of it?' Violet: 'The Famine?' Malone: (with smouldering passion) 'No, the Starvation. When a country is full of food and exporting it, there can be no Famine.' But he kept mum on the British army's role; Ireland's whole-truth-tellers don't receive preferences.
To date, the Big Lie prevails. It started in 1846 when, while the British government genocidally stripped Ireland of its abundant foodstuffs, internationally it was begging help for the 'starving Irish.' John Mitchell remonstrated; 'Many will, perhaps, be surprised to learn neither Ireland, nor anybody in Ireland ever asked alms or favours of any kind, either from England or from any other nation or people.
On the contrary, it was England herself that begged for us, asking a penny, for the love of God, to relieve the poor Irish. And further, constituting herself the almoner and agent of all that charity, she, England, took all the profit of it.' Mitchell again; 'Thus any man who had a house, no matter how wretched, was to pay the new tax; and every man was bound to have a house; for if found out of doors after sunset; and convicted of that offence, he was to be transported for fifteen years, or imprisoned for three - the court to have the discretion of adding hard labour or solitary confinement.
This law would drive the survivors of ejected people (those who did not die of hunger) into the poorhouses or to America; because, being bound to be at home after sunset, and having neither house nor home, they would be all in the absolute power of the police, and in continual peril of transportation to the colonies (Australian slave labour camps).
By another act of parliament the police force was increased, and taken more immediately into the service of the Crown; the Irish counties were in part relieved from their pay; and they became, in all senses, a portion of the regular army. They amounted to twelve thousand chosen men, well armed and drilled. The police were always at the command of sheriffs for executing ejectments; and if they were not in sufficient force, troops of the line could be had from the nearest garrison.
No wonder that the London Times, within less than three years after, was enabled to say; 'Law has ridden roughshod through Ireland, it has been taught with bayonet, and interpreted with ruin. Townships levelled with the ground, straggling columns of exiles, workhouses multiplied, and still crowded, express the determination of the legislature to remove Ireland from its slovenly old barbarism, and to plant the institutions of this more civilized land' (meaning England!)' Mitchell also wrote; 'Steadily, but surely, the 'Government' was working out its calculation; and the produce anticipated by 'political circles' was likely to come out about September (of 1847), in round numbers - two millions of Irish corpses.' (History of Ireland; by John Mitchell; p. 204 )
Toll of Irish Holocaust.
The 1841 census of Ireland revealed a population of 10,897,449. This figure includes the correction factor established by that year's official partial recount. When, between 1779 and 1841, the U.S. population increased by 640 per cent, and England's is estimated to have increased, despite massive emigration to its colonies, by 100 per cent, it is generally accepted that Ireland's population increase was 172% The average annual component of this 172% increase is x in the formula (1+ x)62 = 1 + 172%; thus 0.0163, or 1.63%. Accepting that this 1.63% rate of annual population increase continued until mid-1846 (one human gestation after the late-1845 beginning of removal of Ireland's food), the 1846 population was 11,815,011.
Assuming that rate continued, the population in 1851, Without the starvation, would have been approximately 12,809,841. However; the 1851 census recorded a population of 6,552,385; thus there was a 'disappearance' of 6,257,456. This population-loss figure of 6,257,456 is scarcely susceptible to significant challenge, being derived directly from the British government's own censuses for Ireland. It is reasonable to assume that the rigor established in the recount of 1841 became the standard for the 1851 census; so that any residual undercount would be systemic, affecting 1841 and 1851 proportionately (and, if known, would increase the murder total). These 6,257,456 include roughly 1,000,000 who successfully fled into exile and another 100,000 unborn between 1846 and 1851 due to malnutrition-induced infertility. Of the 100,000 who fled to Canada in 1847, only 60,000 were still alive one month after landing. Among the 40,000 dead was Henry Ford's father's mother who died en route from Cork or in quarantine on Quebec's Grosse Ile.
Thus; though from 1845 through 1850, 6,257,456 'disappeared,' the number murdered is approximately 1.1 million fewer; i.e., 5.16 millions. Consequently; if Britain's census figures for Ireland are correct the British government murdered approximately 5.16 million Irish men, women and children; making it the Irish Holocaust. This number, 5.16 million, exceeds the high end of the range (4.2 to 5.1m) of serious estimates of the number of Jews murdered by Nazis.
The least reliable component of the foregoing arithmetic is the number assumed to have successfully fled. If the flee'rs who survived prove to number, say, 900,000 instead of 1,000,000, the murder count will have to be corrected from 5.16 to 5.26 millions. This amount of adjustment, up or down, of the 5.16 millions murdered is determinable by sensitive review of the immigration records of the U.S., Canada, Argentina, and Australia; and of government records on the Irish who fled to Britain at the time. Economists and historians are disqualified if their published work on the events of 1845-1850 covers up the British army's central role therein. Such individuals lack the standing to participate in this truth-quest.
The Irish are not guilty of dissimulation. Though many Holocaust Irish, like many, say, Auschwitz Jews, took deadly advantage of their own weakest, neither the Irish nor Jewish communities had hand or part in the conceiving and planning of the genocide's from London and Berlin; respectively.
Now you know the truth, truth your British revisionist historians will Not tell you. try to be less arrogant in future.
Saoir Alba a nis!
Niall. _________________ Cha deanar duine glic ach air a chosd fheinn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
azzuri 'Our Scotland' Fossil

Joined: 12 Sep 2005 Posts: 3777
|
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Aventinian - your posts are a complete joke. When will you start posting facts rather than opinions?
They are filled with, "I think", "I believe", "personally", "I prefer" etc.
For your opinions to be taken seriously you'll have to come up with something concrete.
Like New Labour, you'd rather attack "Scottish Nationalists" as individuals, rather than the facts and figures they use, why is that? Your quote below says it all,
| Quote: | | Ne’er before have I witnessed a group of people who rely more upon collective wishful thinking than the Scots nationalists… |
You know deep down the game is up. _________________ "Every single person on this planet is unique. Just like everyone else..." - Random Guy in Edinburgh Pub
Possibly the funniest site in the world, 'The Daily Mash' - http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Niall Nationalist

Joined: 16 Sep 2005 Posts: 170 Location: Cairnbulg
|
Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2006 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Aventian a charaid.
Here are a couple of snippets from Scotland on Sunday to think about:
**************
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/letters.cfm?id=1762006
Never forget the 'potato famine'
OLIVER Tobin Rice of County Wexford should be congratulated for his very informative letter (18 December) about the many evils committed around the world by the British colonialist; however, he failed to mention one of the greatest evils perpetrated by these colonialists on his own doorstep, which happened during the potato blight of 1845-48.
There were potato blights in the US and all over Europe at the time, but only in Ireland did people die of starvation. Many people, even in Ireland, refer, wrongly, to the period as the "Irish potato famine" when it should more properly be referred to as the "Irish holocaust". The Irish did not starve from lack of potatoes, they starved for the lack of "food".
There were over 70 British food-removal regiments based all over Ireland, while British excise steamers, coastguards and warships sailed close to Irish ports to ensure that the food was safely exported. British soldiers forcibly removed food from its starving Limerick, Clare, Kerry and Galway producers. They seized from Ireland's producers tens of millions of head of livestock; tens of millions of tons of flour, grains, meat, poultry and dairy products; enough to sustain 18 million persons.
From Cork harbour on one day in 1847 the Ajax steamed for England with 1,514 firkins of butter, 102 casks of pork, 44 hogsheads of whisky, 844 sacks of oats, 247 sacks of wheat, 106 bales of bacon, 13 casks of hams, 145 casks of porter, 12 sacks of fodder, 28 bales of feathers, eight sacks of lard, 296 boxes of eggs, 30 head of cattle, 90 pigs, 220 lambs and 34 calves, and 69 miscellaneous packages.
Not only were the Irish starved of food then, they are starved of their history today - no Irish person ought ever refer to the Irish holocaust as a famine. I am reluctant to make comparisons, but a larger percentage of the Irish population died as a result of the "Irish holocaust" than Jews as a result of the Holocaust during World War II.
William Burns, South Queensferry
****************
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1112006
CAPTAIN CAROLINE SCOTT
Persecutor of Gaels, 18th Century
Although he was honoured at the time as a true gentleman, as an officer in the Hanoverian army Scott was responsible for some of the most notorious atrocities in the persecution of the Gaelic people following the Battle of Culloden in 1745.
In the following years as one of the Duke of Cumberland's officers he caused the deaths of countless Scots in the Highlands.
"There is little doubt that he was psychologically imbalanced," said Devine. "There was a psychopathic tendency in his mentality."
Professor Allan Macinnes, of Aberdeen University, and author of Clanship, Commerce and The House of Stuart, said: "Having instigated and encouraged genocide, Cumberland largely left this unsavoury task to enthusiastic underlings.
"His compatriots commanded psychotic Lowlanders like Captain Caroline Scott to run amok on land."
*********************
Are you now prepared to accept that your beloved British state committed acts of Genocide? Or will you merely stick your head in the sand and expose your thinking parts to the scrutiny of the world.
Saoir Alba a nis!
Niall. _________________ Cha deanar duine glic ach air a chosd fheinn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Shadowman No Longer a Wean
Joined: 02 Jan 2006 Posts: 94
|
Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2006 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rs_azzuri wrote: | Aventinian - your posts are a complete joke. When will you start posting facts rather than opinions?
They are filled with, "I think", "I believe", "personally", "I prefer" etc.
For your opinions to be taken seriously you'll have to come up with something concrete.
Like New Labour, you'd rather attack "Scottish Nationalists" as individuals, rather than the facts and figures they use, why is that? Your quote below says it all,
| Quote: | | Ne’er before have I witnessed a group of people who rely more upon collective wishful thinking than the Scots nationalists… |
You know deep down the game is up. |
Deary deary me. The sheer stupidity expressed in that post was enough to make me join these forums!
rs_azzuri, let me explain. When someone expresses an opinion, it is customary to preface it with "I think", "I believe", "personally", "I prefer" etc. as it demonstrates the following statement is an opinion. You yourself believe in an independent Scotland no doubt.
You cannot argue with facts: you can only use them to back up your opinions and points. Indeed, there are plenty of possible debates where factual information is either irrelevant or of little value.
Can the benefits of an independent Scotland be proved factually? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
azzuri 'Our Scotland' Fossil

Joined: 12 Sep 2005 Posts: 3777
|
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Shadowman wrote: | | rs_azzuri wrote: | Aventinian - your posts are a complete joke. When will you start posting facts rather than opinions?
They are filled with, "I think", "I believe", "personally", "I prefer" etc.
For your opinions to be taken seriously you'll have to come up with something concrete.
Like New Labour, you'd rather attack "Scottish Nationalists" as individuals, rather than the facts and figures they use, why is that? Your quote below says it all,
| Quote: | | Ne’er before have I witnessed a group of people who rely more upon collective wishful thinking than the Scots nationalists… |
You know deep down the game is up. |
Deary deary me. The sheer stupidity expressed in that post was enough to make me join these forums!
rs_azzuri, let me explain. When someone expresses an opinion, it is customary to preface it with "I think", "I believe", "personally", "I prefer" etc. as it demonstrates the following statement is an opinion. You yourself believe in an independent Scotland no doubt.
You cannot argue with facts: you can only use them to back up your opinions and points. Indeed, there are plenty of possible debates where factual information is either irrelevant or of little value.
Can the benefits of an independent Scotland be proved factually? |
Firstly, apologies for not explaining myself properly. What I meant was that these opinions are not backed up with any sort of proof. Hope that clears up any misunderstanding.
Nice first post, we have our first angry 'troll' it seems . Lets just hope you don't do anything out of 'sheer stupidity'.
As for your question, an Independent Scotland can be backed up factually. Why not have a look at this forum in particular - there is evidence galore if you care to look. Of course, if like Aventinian you wish not to see these facts and spout irrelevant points, you are welcome to stay and look increasingly out of touch to Modern Scotland, just like our esteemed First Minister.
 _________________ "Every single person on this planet is unique. Just like everyone else..." - Random Guy in Edinburgh Pub
Possibly the funniest site in the world, 'The Daily Mash' - http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Shadowman No Longer a Wean
Joined: 02 Jan 2006 Posts: 94
|
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rs_azzuri wrote: | | Shadowman wrote: | | rs_azzuri wrote: | Aventinian - your posts are a complete joke. When will you start posting facts rather than opinions?
They are filled with, "I think", "I believe", "personally", "I prefer" etc.
For your opinions to be taken seriously you'll have to come up with something concrete.
Like New Labour, you'd rather attack "Scottish Nationalists" as individuals, rather than the facts and figures they use, why is that? Your quote below says it all,
| Quote: | | Ne’er before have I witnessed a group of people who rely more upon collective wishful thinking than the Scots nationalists… |
You know deep down the game is up. |
Deary deary me. The sheer stupidity expressed in that post was enough to make me join these forums!
rs_azzuri, let me explain. When someone expresses an opinion, it is customary to preface it with "I think", "I believe", "personally", "I prefer" etc. as it demonstrates the following statement is an opinion. You yourself believe in an independent Scotland no doubt.
You cannot argue with facts: you can only use them to back up your opinions and points. Indeed, there are plenty of possible debates where factual information is either irrelevant or of little value.
Can the benefits of an independent Scotland be proved factually? |
Firstly, apologies for not explaining myself properly. What I meant was that these opinions are not backed up with any sort of proof. Hope that clears up any misunderstanding.
Nice first post, we have our first angry 'troll' it seems . Lets just hope you don't do anything out of 'sheer stupidity'.
As for your question, an Independent Scotland can be backed up factually. Why not have a look at this forum in particular - there is evidence galore if you care to look. Of course, if like Aventinian you wish not to see these facts and spout irrelevant points, you are welcome to stay and look increasingly out of touch to Modern Scotland, just like our esteemed First Minister.
 |
The fact that I don't agree with you and express myself in a forthright manner does not make me a troll. Anyway, my point was that it is impossible to conclusively prove that an independent Scotland would be better or worse off than now, simply because it is too drastic a change to model effectively. For instance, have you thought of the potential impacts of the Scottish defence industry of independence? England will certainly not order future carriers to be built on the Clyde, and you can kiss goodbye to any Eurofighter workshare. Considering that Scotland's manufacturing is already weak, the decline in defence would be a crashing blow. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SLG Born Again..........and still Scottish!

Joined: 16 Sep 2005 Posts: 5515 Location: Dùn Eideann
|
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Shadowman wrote: | | Anyway, my point was that it is impossible to conclusively prove that an independent Scotland would be better or worse off than now, simply because it is too drastic a change to model effectively. For instance, have you thought of the potential impacts of the Scottish defence industry of independence? England will certainly not order future carriers to be built on the Clyde, and you can kiss goodbye to any Eurofighter workshare. Considering that Scotland's manufacturing is already weak, the decline in defence would be a crashing blow. |
At the moment some 5.5% of UK defense spending is spend in Scotland. Some way short of what you would expect by proportion of population. An independent Scotland will keep at least this level of spending, and the associated employment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Shadowman No Longer a Wean
Joined: 02 Jan 2006 Posts: 94
|
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SLG wrote: |
At the moment some 5.5% of UK defense spending is spend in Scotland. Some way short of what you would expect by proportion of population. An independent Scotland will keep at least this level of spending, and the associated employment. |
The suggestion that Scotland would somehow be able to maintain its defence industry is unfounded. This is mainly due to the fact that the defence industry in Scotland is concentrated around a few heavy specialised sites, such as Govan. If England decided to build the Royal Navy Tyneside or at Barrow, these yards could not be kept open by orders for a Scottish navy, and they wouldn't stand a chance in commercial shipping.
Besides, isn't the SNP isolationist (apart from transferring sovereignty to Brussels) as far as foreign policy is concerned? Considering that England would never be a threat, it would be very difficult for the new Scottish government to justify large defence spending. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Aventinian 'Our Scotland' Fossil

Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 4280 Location: Broadcasting From An Anonymous Location Within the United Kingdom.
|
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe they'd spend all their 'defence' money putting down insurgency.
After all, no bloody Scottish Republic's officials would be getting up MY driveway without the aid of a tank. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SLG Born Again..........and still Scottish!

Joined: 16 Sep 2005 Posts: 5515 Location: Dùn Eideann
|
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Shadowman wrote: | | SLG wrote: |
At the moment some 5.5% of UK defense spending is spend in Scotland. Some way short of what you would expect by proportion of population. An independent Scotland will keep at least this level of spending, and the associated employment. |
The suggestion that Scotland would somehow be able to maintain its defence industry is unfounded. This is mainly due to the fact that the defence industry in Scotland is concentrated around a few heavy specialised sites, such as Govan. If England decided to build the Royal Navy Tyneside or at Barrow, these yards could not be kept open by orders for a Scottish navy, and they wouldn't stand a chance in commercial shipping. |
It's a question of spend. If the UK government spends ~64% of the defence budget in Scotland that we would expect per head of population, then Scotland could reduce defence spending to ~64% of what we spend as part of the UK and still retain what is being spent at the moment. That could be spent developing our now very small (despite some recent high profile orders) shipbuilding industry. Or it could be spent in other areas. Regardless, employment levels could be kept level. How is it unfounded? Other countries of similar size to Scotland support a defence industry. If the Scottish government choose to spend the money in order to create employment in other areas then so be it. You are talking as if all the defence spend of the UK comes from English taxpayers.
| Shadowman wrote: | | Besides, isn't the SNP isolationist (apart from transferring sovereignty to Brussels) as far as foreign policy is concerned? Considering that England would never be a threat, it would be very difficult for the new Scottish government to justify large defence spending. |
No, the SNP is not isolationist. And no, the SNP does not want to transfer sovereignty to Brussels. England would never be a threat? I think if England ever thought Scotland was acting in any way to their detriment, then we would feel their influence heavily. Whether that will ever be in the form of a military invasion again, I doubt, but you never know. I would hope that over time, the defence spending could be cut drastically. Mass redundancies are not on the agenda though, so it would have to be done gradually. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|