Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

Cookie · Finding Ma' Way Joined: 24 Feb 2009 Posts: 18

I haven't read through all the posts so forgive me if this topic has been discussed before. I was wondering what people generally feel about the Act of Union.

Personally, think it has served Scotland well. We benefited from British industrialisation and became the workshop of the Empire. As the UK we have fought in many noble causes together, namely the two worked wars. Even in post war Britain, which many characterise nothing but doom and gloom, you have the creation of the welfare state.

Culturally, I also feel that Scotland has lost none of its identity. Scots are still very aware of who they are and our culture has been exported around the globe.

As this sites token Unionist I fear a backlash here, but generally, does anyone else agree?

Lord Pitsligo

Scott2006 · Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:19 pm Post subject:

In thefirst 50 years after the Union - Scotland suffered in the rural areas from mass murder at various times from Union troops.

Certain commercial advantages eventually appeared in the age of Empire, but the English got proportionally richer than the Scottish as the population had to immigrate or join the army /East India Company etc to have a higher standard of living.

As a result of the Empire, Scotland still has a smaller "middle class" than England. Is that a long lasting benefit?

Since the end of WWI the marginal benefits from Scotland as a whole - has led to a "Second Division" Scottish elite as the best Scotland turns out choose to move abroad or move to London for a more challenging existence.

Some good things have happened as a result of the union - can't think of any of them recently.
If Scotland had been an independent country, would our troops have been in Iraq/Afghanistan? Perhaps, perhaps not.
Would terrorists have targeted Glasgow Airport? Probably not.
_________________
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

jamesieboy · Helping with the Count Joined: 15 Feb 2009 Posts: 327

In the past, the distant past, the union served a number of people well because Britain had an empire.

The empire provided jobs and opportunities for many as the empire took (some would say raped!) the massive resources that parts of Africa, India and Canada.

During the Victorian period the British empire reached its zenith due to the lack of competition. The riches were unevenly spread, of course, and there was horrendous poverty and low life expectancy in London, Liverpool and Glasgow, for example.

The twentieth century saw Britain decline in its influence and prosperity. New competitors arrived on the scene after the two world wars and manufacturing production in particular started to slide.

Nowadays the union is becoming more irrelevant by the day. Scotland runs its own Health Service, Education system and many more responsibilies. As oil revenues slowly decline the country will find a more-than-adequate replacement in its nascent renewable energy industry (wind, tidal and wave energy in particular, not to mention new HEP stations coming on line).

We will be more than self-sufficient in 15 years time (according to Alex Salmond) and that will more than compensate from the slow decline of oil and gas.

Scotland can build on this. We have failed to exploit our abundant water and forestry resources. There will always be a need for both. Our whisky industry is buoyant as is our tourism sector (where in the world are there better golf courses?).

I wish England well in the future. They can also benefit from tide and wave energy (in the Severn, for example) but we can still be close and co-operate on many issues even after (political) independence. Ireland isn't exactly cut-off from Britain at the moment. We can continue to be allies when it comes to many aspects of foreign policy.

In the meantime, it is time to face the facts - the union is dying, long live the union. (Not!)

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 2809

agentmancuso

Stevie · Independentist Joined: 22 Nov 2008 Posts: 1179

The Act of getting screwed over. Scotland lost it's government against the wishes of the people. Our economy became subservient to English government demands. We weren't even broke as so many believe because within a very brief period of time the English properly organised our tax collection system and were raking in £800,000 (not much today but enough to keep Napoleon at bay and press English interests abroad - should I not say the interests of the wealthy few) . Oil revenue stolen, our economy unstimulated for 100s of years. No seat of government to fend off Thatcher"s excesses.

You say union, I say onion. Let's call the whole thing off.

But welcome Cookie, it's good to have different perspectives.
_________________
Every man dies, not every man really lives.

Alba gu bràth!

William_Cleland

Morph · Our Scotland = 2nd Job! Joined: 19 Jan 2006 Posts: 916

After Darrien the move to union can be justified if that is your wish. However from then on it is speculation how Scotland would have got on as a global power.

However in the 1910's the Socialism which was popular in Scotland may have led to a soviet ally on the British mainland (although again i am speculating)
_________________
"An oppressive government is to be more feared than a tiger"

Stevie · Independentist Joined: 22 Nov 2008 Posts: 1179

Was an Act of union a good thing?

If you greatly enjoy getting elephant-dicked in every possible orifice, 24 hours a day, 7/7 for just over 300 hundred years without respite, rest or withdrawal then yes it's a wonderful thing.
_________________
Every man dies, not every man really lives.

Alba gu bràth!

Morph · Our Scotland = 2nd Job! Joined: 19 Jan 2006 Posts: 916

I do think you are simplifiying the situation a little BH the union allowed Scotland a chance to grow like never before. Glasgow would not be the same today if it wasnt the Second City of the Empire. I agree that i would be better for an independant Scotland today but not after Darrien.
_________________
"An oppressive government is to be more feared than a tiger"

Luke P · Gaining a Reputation Joined: 03 Jul 2009 Posts: 218

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 2809

Morph · Our Scotland = 2nd Job! Joined: 19 Jan 2006 Posts: 916

I agree Dave that alternative history is not the way to conclude any debate. However It was always going to take decades to recover from Darien and economic problems leading to the union, there was never going to be over night recovery.

Also i agree that the shortbread tin view of the Jacobites is flawed however the access Scotland had to the East India company and other colonial areas did contribute to the growth of cities in Scotland.
_________________
"An oppressive government is to be more feared than a tiger"

Luke P · Gaining a Reputation Joined: 03 Jul 2009 Posts: 218

Colonial opportunities by the bucketload - plantations in the Caribbean, farms in Zambia, logging camps in Canada, prospectors in the USA, administration and engineering posts in India, sheep ranches in New Zealand...

I don't know if the 'Scottish diaspora' is quantifiable, as it was always bound up within the British colonial diaspora. It probably numbers in the many millions, outnumbering the current Scottish population by some margin. Off the top of my head I would hazard that those of at least partial Scots ancestry around the world probably number 20-40 million.

Scotland without the union, and without the empire is not the Scotland we know today and the lives of those colonial entrepreneurs and migrants and their descendents were altered (improved?) forever.

Holebender · Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:49 am Post subject:

But who's to say Scotland wouldn't have developed a colonial phase without the union? Loads of European countries, large and small, had colonies.

Scotland was already moving towards a colonial phase before the union, and if Scotland had not been stripped of her ruling elite by the regnal union of 1603 it may have been far more vigorous in its empire building.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

Luke P · Gaining a Reputation Joined: 03 Jul 2009 Posts: 218

Was Scotland stripped of her ruling elite? I was taught that James VI made England his b***h and turned Royston into his private fiefdom for hunting and partying.

You are right that many small European countries had colonies. They did not have the largest empire the world has ever known however. Nor did Scotland show any particular prowess in the matter during the Darien fiasco. As Dave Coull pointed out on another thread, this was in part due to opposition from England. Scotland as a colonial power could not have thrived in competition with England - and it did not...

The issue is not what if...? The issue is whether what actually happened was favourable or unfavourable.

Holebender · Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 2:20 pm Post subject:

Never mind Darien, consider Nova Scotia.

Scotland was stripped of its ruling elite, who all decamped south to the Royal Court. Darien was, as much as anything, a result of a conflict of interest on the part of the Monarchy. The Monarch, who should have treated all his kingdoms equally, favoured England and did everything in his power to ensure the success of that one kingdom at the cost of any other.

No-one's talking about having the biggest or the most brutal or the bloodiest empire (no source of pride) only of having overseas colonies which would have made a diaspora possible.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

Luke P · Gaining a Reputation Joined: 03 Jul 2009 Posts: 218

Luke P · Gaining a Reputation Joined: 03 Jul 2009 Posts: 218