PDA

View Full Version : The Scottish Empire.



John Little
19-Jun-12, 18:37
I suspect that in the next two years we are going to see a lot of History ‘manufactured’- that is to say that a version of the past will be synthesized which I, for one, will find hard to recognize.

The ‘English Empire’ is one of them.

There never has been an English Empire.

Even in Mediaeval Times when the Angevin Kings ruled half of France, I would not count that as ‘English’. It’s called the Angevin Empire because the English too were a subject people, despised and looked down on by an elite of Norman Barons who did not even speak English. In fact they despised English as inferior, dirty and the language of serfs- certainly up to the time of Henry VI, the language of the ruling class was French –speaking.

One of them tried to conquer Scotland, as did his son. They failed because the Scots won and for more than 200 years Scotland was independent.


Then in 1603 the King of Scots inherited the English throne.

Far from being the other way round, England became a possession of the King of Scotland. If anything might be said of empires then it might be that England became the Scottish empire. For some reason he decided to rule both kingdoms from London – it was probably cash that caused the entire Scottish court to decamp to London- but it was an odd decision, It’s as if Victoria, after being made Empress of India, had decided to rule Britain from Delhi.

At any rate James held a competition to design the Union flag, and desired it to be a marriage of love between the two nations. Yet Scotland kept its own government, and the Stewart Kings were rather pre-occupied with other things during the 17th century to do a lot about it.

However in 1688 a baby was born in suspicious circumstances to James ll. Protestants believed the baby to be a fake, a changling designed to keep a Catholic King on the British throne- they dubbed him ‘The Old Pretender’. Catholics recognized the baby, James, as James III. Outraged by this, the Whigs of both England and Scotland engineered a coup where Queen Mary, James’ Protestant daughter came over from Holland with her husband to jointly rule Britain. The lowland Whigs in Scotland made sure that even the Catholic clans of the west swore allegiance to William and Mary.

Mary died first and William was killed by a mole in 1702.

Anne, the last Protestant Stewart, became queen in that year.

However she soon became involved in a long and vicious war with France. And who did the French King have sitting in Paris on a nice pension, claiming to be King of Scotland by right of birth, and of England too?

James III.

That is why it became so desirable to tighten control of her two realms by incorporating the two realms under one government. Fear of the French was the main reason and the Jacobite menace.

The Darien debacle was another

The 1707 union was not popular with the Edinburgh mob, nor with Jacobites.

But to Scottish lowland Whigs, scared silly by the fear of a French landing in the Highlands and a Jacobite uprising in which they would lose all they had, it was a very attractive proposition.


Now will somebody please tell me where I have gone wrong?

Because apparently somewhere in all this Scotland became part of an “English Empire’.

I’ve never heard of it.

I’ve heard of the British Empire where the industrial might of the Scottish central belt and the North of England and the Welsh valleys conquered 1/3 of the world.

Cos if being part of the ‘English Empire’ is supposed to make Scots feel inferior or servile then I think it’s utter codswallop- a made-up version of the past that does not scan.

And I have never in my entire life met a servile or inferior Scot – and I do not believe that I ever will.

Those things in this context are of the mind and particularly of the mind of individuals. They must feel what they wish to feel- the ‘English Empire’ has no responsibility for that.

As to me, from one perception I am a subject in a country which may far more accurately be described as evolving from the Scottish Empire of James I and VI – and happy to be so- and I do not feel servile or inferior about it.

ducati
19-Jun-12, 23:22
I heard about all that at School John so there must be something to it. But where do the alien lizard people come in? And when did they take over the monarchy?

Oddquine
20-Jun-12, 00:56
I suspect that in the next two years we are going to see a lot of History ‘manufactured’- that is to say that a version of the past will be synthesized which I, for one, will find hard to recognize.

The ‘English Empire’ is one of them.

There never has been an English Empire.

Even in Mediaeval Times when the Angevin Kings ruled half of France, I would not count that as ‘English’. It’s called the Angevin Empire because the English too were a subject people, despised and looked down on by an elite of Norman Barons who did not even speak English. In fact they despised English as inferior, dirty and the language of serfs- certainly up to the time of Henry VI, the language of the ruling class was French –speaking.

One of them tried to conquer Scotland, as did his son. They failed because the Scots won and for more than 200 years Scotland was independent.


Then in 1603 the King of Scots inherited the English throne.

Far from being the other way round, England became a possession of the King of Scotland. If anything might be said of empires then it might be that England became the Scottish empire. For some reason he decided to rule both kingdoms from London – it was probably cash that caused the entire Scottish court to decamp to London- but it was an odd decision, It’s as if Victoria, after being made Empress of India, had decided to rule Britain from Delhi.

At any rate James held a competition to design the Union flag, and desired it to be a marriage of love between the two nations. Yet Scotland kept its own government, and the Stewart Kings were rather pre-occupied with other things during the 17th century to do a lot about it.

However in 1688 a baby was born in suspicious circumstances to James ll. Protestants believed the baby to be a fake, a changling designed to keep a Catholic King on the British throne- they dubbed him ‘The Old Pretender’. Catholics recognized the baby, James, as James III. Outraged by this, the Whigs of both England and Scotland engineered a coup where Queen Mary, James’ Protestant daughter came over from Holland with her husband to jointly rule Britain. The lowland Whigs in Scotland made sure that even the Catholic clans of the west swore allegiance to William and Mary.

Mary died first and William was killed by a mole in 1702.

Anne, the last Protestant Stewart, became queen in that year.

However she soon became involved in a long and vicious war with France. And who did the French King have sitting in Paris on a nice pension, claiming to be King of Scotland by right of birth, and of England too?

James III.

That is why it became so desirable to tighten control of her two realms by incorporating the two realms under one government. Fear of the French was the main reason and the Jacobite menace.

The Darien debacle was another

The 1707 union was not popular with the Edinburgh mob, nor with Jacobites.

But to Scottish lowland Whigs, scared silly by the fear of a French landing in the Highlands and a Jacobite uprising in which they would lose all they had, it was a very attractive proposition.


Now will somebody please tell me where I have gone wrong?

Because apparently somewhere in all this Scotland became part of an “English Empire’.

I’ve never heard of it.

I’ve heard of the British Empire where the industrial might of the Scottish central belt and the North of England and the Welsh valleys conquered 1/3 of the world.

Cos if being part of the ‘English Empire’ is supposed to make Scots feel inferior or servile then I think it’s utter codswallop- a made-up version of the past that does not scan.

And I have never in my entire life met a servile or inferior Scot – and I do not believe that I ever will.

Those things in this context are of the mind and particularly of the mind of individuals. They must feel what they wish to feel- the ‘English Empire’ has no responsibility for that.

As to me, from one perception I am a subject in a country which may far more accurately be described as evolving from the Scottish Empire of James I and VI – and happy to be so- and I do not feel servile or inferior about it.

English Empire......from Wiki....which does rather understand what you don't appear to...that there WAS no British Empire before 1707....
The first English overseas settlements were established in Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland), quickly followed by North America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_America), Bermuda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bermuda) and the West Indies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Indies) and by trading posts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trading_post) called "factories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_%28trading_post%29)" in the East Indies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Indies), such as Bantam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantam_%28city%29), and in the Indian subcontinent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_subcontinent), beginning with Surat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surat). In 1639, a series of English fortresses on the Indian coast was initiated with Fort St George (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_St._George_%28India%29). In 1661, the marriage of King Charles II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_England) to Catherine of Braganza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_of_Braganza) brought him as part of her dowry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowry) new possessions which had been Portuguese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Empire), including Tangier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Tangier) in North Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Africa) and Bombay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumbai) in India.
In North America, Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Colony) and Newfoundland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newfoundland_%28island%29) were the first centres of English colonization. As the 17th century wore on, Maine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province_of_Maine), New Hampshire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province_of_New_Hampshire), Salem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem,_Massachusetts), Massachusetts Bay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Bay_Colony), New Scotland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_Scotia), Connecticut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Colony), Maryland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province_of_Maryland), and Rhode Island and Providence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhode_Island_Colony), were settled. In 1664, New Netherland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Netherland) and New Sweden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Sweden) were taken from the Dutch, becoming New York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province_of_New_York), New Jersey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province_of_New_Jersey), and parts of Delaware (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaware) and Pennsylvania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania)

Imperial rather well describes the attitude of the English at the time of the Union, I think, and it hasn't changed that much since, really.....Having supreme authority; sovereign. Can you describe it in any other way? That is why they insisted on an incorporating Union, because that gave them the control over Scotland they had never managed to achieve and maintain by force of arms over the centuries. I am sorry you object to me agreeing with you in that other thread that Scotland is part of the English empire ain't it.....but if you will take an adjective describing attitude and extrapolate that to produce a strawman.....what else do you expect?

The fact that Jamie Saxt and his descendants ruled over both countries did not make either nation "British".....that was a specific requirement set out in the Union Treaty in an effort to make the whole thing appear as if it was not just going to be England writ larger. And the fact that Jamie Saxt was Scottish means sod all either..have you never noticed Unionist Scots, even when those Scots represent Scottish constituencies in the Westminster Parliament don't take much notice of Scotland..and on the rare occasions they do they are outvoted by the preponderance of MPs for English consituencies.....remember the Poll Tax? Self interest trumps nationality every time..as it did with Jamie Saxt and the Scottish "elite".

You may consider English history before the Union as being "British" but historians disagree. Out of interest, where do you get for more than 200 years Scotland was independent..........don't you mean for around 800 years? Historians maintain that England was an Independent Sovereign State from 927 AD and Scotland from much the same time. Neither monarch was in complete control of their own bailiwicks for centuries, but nevertheless that is around the time that historians designate as the formation of the nations.

John Little
20-Jun-12, 07:11
Referring to a Wiki stub is a bit desperate ain't it? Somebody writes a stub referring to the English Empire, better known as the British Empire, with a link to British Empire and that's your authority?

It all rather underscores that History is a question of presentation and perception and that a lot of people have an interest in presenting a particular version of History in the next two years.

Scottish Independence.

I do not dispute the long standing history of the Kingdom of Scotland since 927ad. However I have my doubts about its 'independence' before 1314 because she had been invaded by a foreign usurper who occupied it for a time and garrisoned her main stronghold. By supreme national effort the Scots regained what they had lost- namely their sovereign independence, taking it back from the invader, and held it sovereign until 1603.

The word 'Sovereign' is one I use advisedly because James VI was an absolute ruler, meaning that, whatever you may think, he was the government of Scotland - in his own right and person, by divine decree. It was the Stuarts holding to that idea that led to the civil wars of the 17th century. Although the absolute right was, in theory, got rid of by Cromwell, Charles II ruled without asking Parliament for money for most of his reign, benefitting from a huge French subsidy - so did James II. The monarchs had much more power than they do now.

In other words, sovereignty of both England and Scotland was vested in the person of the King or Queen - all Stuarts.

All of the colonial settlements you refer to, apart from the failed Virginia settlement, took place in the 17th century. James Stuart, Charles I Stuart, Charles II Stuart, James VII and II Stuart, William and his wife Mary Stuart, and Anne Stuart.

They happened under one flag, instituted by one monarch- James Stuart.

I suppose you'll be telling me next that no Scots played a part in this colonial expansion?

You seem to regard it as utterly unimportant that the Stuarts actually ruled England and Scotland through their own appointed ministers and that the regarded Democracy as a Greek drollery.


So 'Imperial' best describes the attitude of the English at this time does it? You don't seem much to like the English- but casting that aside it seems to me that it was the Stuarts who had the imperial attitude since all this expansion happened under their licenses and charters.


You seem to have a beef about the Union being an incorporating one.

I have explained why they did it- and imho their decision was justifiable. Queen Anne, if James III was a legitimate heir, had no right to sit on her throne. If the French landed in the Highlands, as well they might since the War of the Spanish Succession was in full swing, then her position was very dangerous.

In her shoes I would definitely have incorporated my two realms into one for fear of Jacobites - a fear well borne out in 1715 as no imagined threat.

So although you seem to have a fine contempt for Scotland's royal house and their motives, the fact is that the Imperial expansion you so despise, took place on their watch.

'British' is a geographical expression. The Stuarts ruled all of Britain. Even the conquest of Ireland in 1690 took place during their time.
How else should I describe an empire run by the British monarchs?







Now I have a thought for you.

I think that factually, all I have said is correct.

The government and elite of Scotland took over England at the beginning of the 17th century.

This being the case, the Scots having a referendum on whether they want independence or not is absurd. It should be the English having a referendum on whether they want Independence from Scotland, their colonial masters.

So Mr Salmond's referendum question to the people of Scotland should perhaps read

'Do you object to England, Wales and Northern Ireland having their independence from Scotland?'


Because that would seem to be a more accurate basis for it than your version of the perfidious English taking over and dominating Scotland.

It never happened.

John Little
20-Jun-12, 07:14
I heard about all that at School John so there must be something to it. But where do the alien lizard people come in? And when did they take over the monarchy?

They have taken a dislike to roast beef and yorkshire pud so have decided to give up on the English, Welsh and Irish and come home to live in Brigadoon where they will feast on haggis, deep fried Mars bars and fried fruit cake and annoy the SNP by perpetuating stereotypes of Scotland...

RecQuery
20-Jun-12, 07:49
Woah that's a glib history white wash if ever I saw one, if you're going to post a wall of text then references are nice.

Here's a nice little intellectual exercise, name some things which are quintessentially British, not something obscure but something that people from other countries would recognises. Most people are hard pressed to leave London let alone England.

You don't strike me as naive so you must realise that just because something changes name that doesn't make it so. For example, lots of totalitarian countries have 'Republic' or 'Democratic' in their name. Also as I've mentioned the overwhelming amount of influence England wields over the rest of the UK/Britain. Most institutions being centralised there, the fact that English MPs can out vote MPs from all other parts, etc.

John Little
20-Jun-12, 08:08
A glib history whitewash? I thought that was the one which rewrote everything I had ever read or been taught and came up with the notion that Scotland was part of the 'English Empire'.

That's utter nonsense.

As to references- I am not engaged in writing a thesis. I merely retell things that I was taught in the Miller Academy in Thurso many years ago, and the stuff that I have read. The generally accepted version of history has more to do with what I have related than the nrrative of any 'English Empire'.

You want references, then look 'em up, for I don't need them.

Rather I ask you to point out where I have said anything that is not correct...


Why would I wish to name something that is 'quintessentially British'? I would not wish to do such a thing- it's rather too much like Norman Tebbit's 'cricket test' for Britishness- an absurdity. We did not play cricket in the Miller in my day so I knew very well how daft and Tory a notion that was. I see no reason for you to echo it.

The glory and delight in being 'British' does not rest in the character of 'British' but in the diversity of its people, its culture and its land, all in such a small space. The jewel in the crown of being British lies in shared ideas of tolerance, justice and Social Democracy and an instinctive distrust of parochialism and Xenophobia- though that's only my own view. 'British' is a notion, a shared Geography and a wish to make life better for all in these islands.

I do not deny the predominance of England in the Union at the moment. If Scotland had 55 million people and England 5 then I am sure the situation would be reversed. It also seems to me that a federal solution, if sought with determination, could alleviate these problems.

Above all, if the people of Scotland vote to be independent then I, and probably most of England, would have no objection at all. Nobody I know looks down on Scots, calls them 'sweaty socks' (I never heard of that before Joxville put it on another thread) or has any desire to hang onto Scotland as a colonial possession at all costs.

But that is not what this thread is about.

This thread is about the rewriting of History where Scotland is supposed to be part of an 'English Empire'

It ain't and it never was.




And I'll tell you something else. If the English had tried to do such a thing then the Scots would have fought to the knife.


So fine - consider Scottish independence in the light of today.

But please - spare me the manufactured past where the evil English have taken over and oppressed the Scots.

You are better than that.

squidge
20-Jun-12, 11:24
I suspect that in the next two years we are going to see a lot of History ‘manufactured’- that is to say that a version of the past will be synthesized which I, for one, will find hard to recognize.

The ‘English Empire’ is one of them.

There never has been an English Empire.

Even in Mediaeval Times when the Angevin Kings ruled half of France, I would not count that as ‘English’. It’s called the Angevin Empire because the English too were a subject people, despised and looked down on by an elite of Norman Barons who did not even speak English. In fact they despised English as inferior, dirty and the language of serfs- certainly up to the time of Henry VI, the language of the ruling class was French –speaking.

One of them tried to conquer Scotland, as did his son. They failed because the Scots won and for more than 200 years Scotland was independent.


Then in 1603 the King of Scots inherited the English throne.

Far from being the other way round, England became a possession of the King of Scotland. If anything might be said of empires then it might be that England became the Scottish empire. For some reason he decided to rule both kingdoms from London – it was probably cash that caused the entire Scottish court to decamp to London- but it was an odd decision, It’s as if Victoria, after being made Empress of India, had decided to rule Britain from Delhi.

At any rate James held a competition to design the Union flag, and desired it to be a marriage of love between the two nations. Yet Scotland kept its own government, and the Stewart Kings were rather pre-occupied with other things during the 17th century to do a lot about it.

However in 1688 a baby was born in suspicious circumstances to James ll. Protestants believed the baby to be a fake, a changling designed to keep a Catholic King on the British throne- they dubbed him ‘The Old Pretender’. Catholics recognized the baby, James, as James III. Outraged by this, the Whigs of both England and Scotland engineered a coup where Queen Mary, James’ Protestant daughter came over from Holland with her husband to jointly rule Britain. The lowland Whigs in Scotland made sure that even the Catholic clans of the west swore allegiance to William and Mary.

Mary died first and William was killed by a mole in 1702.

Anne, the last Protestant Stewart, became queen in that year.

However she soon became involved in a long and vicious war with France. And who did the French King have sitting in Paris on a nice pension, claiming to be King of Scotland by right of birth, and of England too?

James III.

That is why it became so desirable to tighten control of her two realms by incorporating the two realms under one government. Fear of the French was the main reason and the Jacobite menace.

The Darien debacle was another

The 1707 union was not popular with the Edinburgh mob, nor with Jacobites.

But to Scottish lowland Whigs, scared silly by the fear of a French landing in the Highlands and a Jacobite uprising in which they would lose all they had, it was a very attractive proposition.


Now will somebody please tell me where I have gone wrong?

Because apparently somewhere in all this Scotland became part of an “English Empire’.

I’ve never heard of it.

I’ve heard of the British Empire where the industrial might of the Scottish central belt and the North of England and the Welsh valleys conquered 1/3 of the world.

Cos if being part of the ‘English Empire’ is supposed to make Scots feel inferior or servile then I think it’s utter codswallop- a made-up version of the past that does not scan.

And I have never in my entire life met a servile or inferior Scot – and I do not believe that I ever will.

Those things in this context are of the mind and particularly of the mind of individuals. They must feel what they wish to feel- the ‘English Empire’ has no responsibility for that.

As to me, from one perception I am a subject in a country which may far more accurately be described as evolving from the Scottish Empire of James I and VI – and happy to be so- and I do not feel servile or inferior about it.


Hmm

Im going to throw my two pennorth on here

Scotland at the time of the union was broke after the disastrous attempt to try to set up a colony in Panama. At that time there had been a row over who would take the throne after the death of Queen Anne. The English parliament decided on one candidate without consulting Scotland who threw a strop about this - unsurprisingly - and passed the Act of Security (I think) cant remember the exact date but before 1707. The English parliament then retaliated byt passing an Act called the Alien Act. This effectively prevented trade between Scotland and England and its colonies and designated Scotland a foreign country. To a Scotland already broke this was a disaster so at that point the English parliament offered to repeal this act and pay compensation to those Aristocrats who had lost money in The Darian thing.

The Aristocracy in Scotland voted for the act of union because it made them money. The people of Scotland were not happy and there was rioting in the streets for ages and I think they even declared marshal law. Burns - said to be the voice of the people at the time talked of Scotland being "bought and sold for English Gold" and he was pretty much right.

As I understand it 75% of Scots were said to be against the Union at the time.

So not exactly a Scottish Takeover John

Green_not_greed
20-Jun-12, 12:12
Mary died first and William was killed by a mole in 1702.

That must have been a real savage wee so-and-so, that mole!

Alrock
20-Jun-12, 13:04
Hmm

Im going to throw my two pennorth on here

Scotland at the time of the union was broke after the disastrous attempt to try to set up a colony in Panama. At that time there had been a row over who would take the throne after the death of Queen Anne. The English parliament decided on one candidate without consulting Scotland who threw a strop about this - unsurprisingly - and passed the Act of Security (I think) cant remember the exact date but before 1707. The English parliament then retaliated byt passing an Act called the Alien Act. This effectively prevented trade between Scotland and England and its colonies and designated Scotland a foreign country. To a Scotland already broke this was a disaster so at that point the English parliament offered to repeal this act and pay compensation to those Aristocrats who had lost money in The Darian thing.

The Aristocracy in Scotland voted for the act of union because it made them money. The people of Scotland were not happy and there was rioting in the streets for ages and I think they even declared marshal law. Burns - said to be the voice of the people at the time talked of Scotland being "bought and sold for English Gold" and he was pretty much right.

As I understand it 75% of Scots were said to be against the Union at the time.

So not exactly a Scottish Takeover John

So basically... The Scots people where never consulted over the Union so by modern standards the union is illegitimate...

So... To reflect modern democratic standards the upcoming referendum should not be asking if we want to leave the union but instead a long overdue referendum on whether or not we want to actually join it.

John Little
20-Jun-12, 13:21
To the Lords of Convention,
T'was Claverhouse spake;
Ere the King's crown be down,
There are crowns to be break

Therefore each cavalier that loves Honour- and me
-Let him follow the bonnets o Bonnie Dundee.

So tremble false Whigs
In the midst of your glee-
Ye hae no seen the last
of ma bonnets and me.



Squidge - the politics of Scotland during this era was infinitely complex and there was a divide so deep that Scotland was almost two countries. Claverhouse, with a Highland army won the battle of Killiecrankie but died. So the Scottish Whig Lords were able to assert their power over Scotland and subdue the Highlands. It was a Whiggish clan which carried out the massacre at Glencoe, and not the English- and they did it in the name of Mary Stuart and her husband.

The Lowlands were overwhelmingly Whig and they hated and feared what lay North of the Highland line- Popery and Jacobites.

They did not want Catholicism, Jacobites, the seizure of their lands or the divine right of kings; and that is why the great lords of Scotland supported a union with England. By becoming one nation they united with the ruling Whig junta in England in the face of a possible French invasion.

The Darien affair was a convenient lever, but the Jacobite threat was much much bigger. The Union was about safeguarding the Lords of Scotland from losing their estates by mass confiscation and the imposition of Catholicism on the Scottish lowlands as the price for French subsidy and aid.

75% of Scots against the Union?

Where does that figure come from? There were no referenda in those days. The apparatus of government was so primitive in both England and Scotland that it was difficult enough to collect taxes.
No opinion polls.
No newpapers.
No telly.
No democracy either.

This applied to England too.

So yes Alrock - by modern standards the Union would not stand up to any test of validity.

But the legitimate government of Scotland and the legitimate government of England carried out an Act of Union, and a Stuart Monarch signed the act.

They were codifying and strengthening what already existed - that the reigning monarch, in an age when monarchs held real power, ruled both England and Scotland.

Not a take-over by the evil English Empire.

Burns was not even born in 1707...

John Little
20-Jun-12, 13:22
That must have been a real savage wee so-and-so, that mole!

You are right!

He broke William's neck instantaneously.

That mole was so popular with the Jacobites that they used to have a wee toast at the end of dinner;

'To the little gentleman in the black velvet jacket!'

John Little
20-Jun-12, 13:33
I actually find it amazing.

A Scottish King pulls off a coup of immense proportions.

He becomes King of a neighbouring country, enemies for years, imposes his favourites and leaves a vice-roy to run his own kingdom.

He established a dynasty which rules both countries by undoubted right for over 100 years and only dies out by accident of birth.

He grants letters patents, charters and monopolies to adventurers who then set out in his name to set up foreign possessions so extensive that they might well be called 'The Stuart Empire'.

The first 'English' settlement in America is called 'Jamestown'- named after the Scotsman who licensed its creation. The american colonies are set up in his name.

Not bad for the house of Siward, steward of Scotland.

400 years later his ain folk scorn him and his posterity and cry shame on his time.

It's a funny old world.

squidge
20-Jun-12, 13:46
The 75% quote was attributed to Sir John Clerk - a member of the parliament and a Unionist. I am aware that Burns was not born then and my quote should have read " at his time". It is said that his words reflected the mood of the people even sixty or so years later.

We can speculate but it is documented well that the people of Scotland were horrified and appalled by the Act of Union and as such it is hardly surprising that the idea of a double deal, or a takeover was the favoured view of the majority of people and bred ill will and a sense of outrage. I dont actually place much value on the "opressed" scots argument, however you can justify an argument which maintains that today, Scotland is not a priority for Westminster and that they fail to understand the demographic of Scotland and fail to adapt policies to meet the needs of Scotland.

Whilst I accept that the politics were complex and volatile the Union was about money. Nothing more nothing less, it was about the wealthy recouping their losses and safeguarding their own interests. That is it - no more and no less. The majority of people appear to have seen it as a sell out, that england saw an opening and took it. It was either live with the Alien Act or join the Union, hobsons choice really i suppose.

This is a good example of why history IS important when looking as society today - is it likely that the feeling of being taken over which appears to have beent he view of many people has been passed down through the ages and translated into part of the need for "freedom" from Westminster.

John Little
20-Jun-12, 13:57
If you choose to disregard what I have said about Jacobites and Religion and insist that the Union was about money alone, then I really cannot comment more.

If you choose to believe that you know what the mood of the Scottish people was based upon speculation then whatever I say is of no avail.

If you choose to think that the will of the people should have counted in Scotland any more in 1707 any more than it did in England in 1707, then all I can say is that you are judging the past with modern values.

If you choose to think that the view of being 'taken over' in 1707 has passed down through the ages, more than the same feeling of many English in 1714 when a German dynasty was imposed on both England and Scotland, then that is your choice.

If you look at the situation of Scotland today and say that there are grave concerns over its relations with a government in Westminster which need to be addressed, then I agree with you.

If you say you speak for Scotland then you are mistaken. Scotland will speak for herself - and this time there will be no doubt as to what the Scots think.

But to come back to the gist of this thread-



show me where the 'English Empire' took over Scotland.

Not with perception, interpretation, nuance, - but with armies, coercion, imposition and oppression.

Just when was that?

RecQuery
20-Jun-12, 14:00
It was about more than money, though that was a large part of it. England were also worried about a renewed Scottish-French alliance. That's why as a prelude to the Union they also sabotaged Scottish trade.

Alrock
20-Jun-12, 14:08
At the end of the day all of this is purely academic, people will interpret history as they see fit to help justify their position...
All that matters is that a sizeable proportion of Scots want an end to the union, whether or not that proportion is large enough to bring about this change will be discovered in 2014...
Let's keep the discussion to the pros & cons of independence.

John Little
20-Jun-12, 14:17
At the end of the day all of this is purely academic, people will interpret history as they see fit to help justify their position...
All that matters is that a sizeable proportion of Scots want an end to the union, whether or not that proportion is large enough to bring about this change will be discovered in 2014...
Let's keep the discussion to the pros & cons of independence.

I entirely agree with and applaud the second part of what you say.

But the first part concerns me. I already see the deliberate fostering of a sense of grievance, the perceptions of slights where none were intended, and the appeal to a past that never existed.

The people of Scotland will speak.

But please let it be without the artificial stimulant of emotive propaganda based on a past which never existed.

That truly would be worthy of a despot.


Scotland to allow itself to be a subservient partner in the 'English Empire'?

Aye - right!

squidge
20-Jun-12, 14:57
If you choose to disregard what I have said about Jacobites and Religion and insist that the Union was about money alone, then I really cannot comment more.? I am not disregarding anything. I thought this was a discussion.


If you choose to believe that you know what the mood of the Scottish people was based upon speculation then whatever I say is of no avail.? I dont believe I know anything I thought this was a discussion.


If you choose to think that the will of the people should have counted in Scotland any more in 1707 any more than it did in England in 1707, then all I can say is that you are judging the past with modern values.?
I dont think the will of the people counted AT all... that was my point in what I thought was a discussion.


If you choose to think that the view of being 'taken over' in 1707 has passed down through the ages, more than the same feeling of many English in 1714 when a German dynasty was imposed on both England and Scotland, then that is your choice.?
I offer a view thats all - i thought this was a discussion


If you look at the situation of Scotland today and say that there are grave concerns over its relations with a government in Westminster which need to be addressed, then I agree with you.? So its ok for me to say that but not to say the rest?


If you say you speak for Scotland then you are mistaken. Scotland will speak for herself - and this time there will be no doubt as to what the Scots think.? I dont ever pretend to speak for Scotland! The very idea is preposterous. I speak as always my own opinions. if others agree or disagree then that is their perogative. You are right Scotland will speak for herself and I am looking forward to hearing her voices very much. However, as one of Scotland's people I am also entitled to have my voice heard and I will do so.

I joined this thread because I thought that there was an opportunity to post what I understand and hear what others have to say and maybe learn something but f YOU choose to throw a strop and bite my head off because I dont jump at the sound of your posts and automatically agree with your interpretation of events then thats YOUR choice, John. I thought this was a discussion thread where I might learn something. It appears that I should have learned to shut up!




But to come back to the gist of this thread-



show me where the 'English Empire' took over Scotland.

Not with perception, interpretation, nuance, - but with armies, coercion, imposition and oppression.

Just when was that? Wellllllllllllllllll dare I even venture to suggest that takeovers can happen with any one of the four things that you mention - and the various acts of parliament could be considered coercion and imposition and maybe have an element of opression within them. I dont know John, It might have made an interesting discussion but I guess thats not the gist of this thread so ill just step gracefully back to my knitting lest i run the risk of having a different opinion.:roll:

John Little
20-Jun-12, 15:30
Squidge.

I think you must be hearing a voice that I do not possess. I assure you that I have thrown no strop and I have not bitten your head off, being perfectly calm even mild-mannered.

What I have asked someone to do is to indicate where I have said something that is not correct.

So far, you have not; you imagine that I have slighted you and you bite my head off.


To your point.

You tell me now that you are not disregarding my points about religion and the Jacobites. Yet in your previous post you told me that the Act of Union was "was about money. Nothing more nothing less, it was about the wealthy recouping their losses and safeguarding their own interests. That is it - no more and no less. "

Yet you do not disregard my point that there may have been other factors even more important?

You also said this;

"The people of Scotland were not happy and there was rioting in the streets for ages and I think they even declared marshal law. Burns - said to be the voice of the people at the time talked of Scotland being "bought and sold for English Gold" and he was pretty much right. "

All the people of Scotland. You are stating that 'the people' of Scotland were not happy. You spoke for them.
You also state that Burns was 'right'.

Based on hearsay.

My point about there being no Democracy and the voice of the people not being heard, you agree with. That applied to England too. There was no popular franchise. Yet the governments accepted as legitimate at the time passed an Act of Union.

Do we differ in this?

We agree that there are areas of the relationship between England and Scotland that need to be addressed. Have I stopped you or attempted to stop you saying anything else. What I ask is that you tell me of this 'English Empire' and when it took over Scotland. It need not be you who tells me.

Anyone will do.

You don't ever pretend to speak for Scotland now. But you are quite happy to speak for Scotland then, regardless of Jacobites or Catholics- I quote;

"The people of Scotland were not happy and there was rioting in the streets for ages and I think they even declared marshal law."

All of them?

I too look forward to hearing Scotland's voice. Has anyone denied your entitlement to have your voice heard?

And no-one has told you to shut up. I started this thread because there was talk of an 'English Empire' on another thread. It's nothing more than a soundbite based on wishful thinking and designed to bring about a particular reaction- so I challenged it.

Evidently you do not like that, because you think different.

And finally- you do not like my question about the English Empire taking over Scotland. You favour the idea that oppression may happen in other ways. That is so - it can happen through law.

The British government kept control of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland through a system of laws known as 'The Bloody Code' for over 200 years. It id not apply particularly to the Scots but to all. Oppression was general throughout these islands.

Okay this post is finished.

My pulse does not race. My heartbeat is normal and I am neither sweaty nor flushed.

I feel not the slightest bit stroppy.

When did Scotland become part of the 'English Empire"?

rob murray
20-Jun-12, 15:45
I entirely agree with and applaud the second part of what you say.

But the first part concerns me. I already see the deliberate fostering of a sense of grievance, the perceptions of slights where none were intended, and the appeal to a past that never existed.

The people of Scotland will speak.

But please let it be without the artificial stimulant of emotive propaganda based on a past which never existed.

That truly would be worthy of a despot.


Scotland to allow itself to be a subservient partner in the 'English Empire'?

Aye - right!

'Quintessentially British' : I can think of Basil Brush ! Everything / all disputes between countries is centred around money, as money is power..greatest example I can think of is the so called Napoleonic Wars....the fight beteen the democrats of France and the mercantlist power elite in the UK..comments ??

John Little
20-Jun-12, 16:10
My question seems to be a simple enough one though it seems to exercise a certain antipathy in some Nationalist circles.

I would like to ask another though, and it's related to this quite closely.


If the History of a people, any people, is presented as one where they have had to struggle for their freedom continually for centuries, what effect does it have on the national consciousness?

Or to put it another way- if a people are portrayed in their history books as being in some way victims, downtrodden, inferior and badly done to- then what effects does it have on their self-perception as a nation?

Does this view foster self confidence, optimism, tolerance, humanity and understanding?

Or does it tend to foster insularity, resentment, inward-looking and intolerance?

Or does it have no effect at all cos no-one reads history anyway?

John Little
20-Jun-12, 16:12
'Quintessentially British' : I can think of Basil Brush ! Everything / all disputes between countries is centred around money, as money is power..greatest example I can think of is the so called Napoleonic Wars....the fight beteen the democrats of France and the mercantlist power elite in the UK..comments ??

I think it's dangerous to go for the mono-causal. Money may be a prime but it is not always important.

Th most dangerous of movements are not in it for money but for belief.

Much more lethal.

Oddquine
20-Jun-12, 16:27
The only person, in either of the two threads with a Scottish theme that I have read, who mentioned an English Empire was yourself, John Little. I repeat I am sorry you object to me agreeing with you in that other thread that "Scotland is part of the English empire ain't it".....but if you will take an adjective describing attitude and extrapolate that to produce a strawman.....what else do you expect?

Pointless holding any discussion with someone who makes things up for himself just to allow him not only to respond as if somebody else said it..but to start a whole thread on the back of a false argument invented by himself.
By the way, I used the Wiki quote to save me having to type out all the areas which were within the English Empire before the Union....my posts take me long enough to write without adding unnecessary one finger typing.

rob murray
20-Jun-12, 16:32
I think it's dangerous to go for the mono-causal. Money may be a prime but it is not always important.

Th most dangerous of movements are not in it for money but for belief.

Much more lethal.

Yes but "beliefs" need power and support = money : not mono casual, a mere statement of fact : Even Lenin ( a man of profound believes ) needed money to gain and sustain power. We mostly live in capitalist systems of varying categories / classification : democratise the middle east...the belief...the truth...gain power to control resources...to gain access to raw materials...control markets.... profits...surely : if I am missing something here then succinctly educate" me

John Little
20-Jun-12, 16:40
The only person, in either of the two threads with a Scottish theme that I have read, who mentioned an English Empire was yourself, John Little. I repeat I am sorry you object to me agreeing with you in that other thread that "Scotland is part of the English empire ain't it".....but if you will take an adjective describing attitude and extrapolate that to produce a strawman.....what else do you expect?

Pointless holding any discussion with someone who makes things up for himself just to allow him not only to respond as if somebody else said it..but to start a whole thread on the back of a false argument invented by himself.
By the way, I used the Wiki quote to save me having to type out all the areas which were within the English Empire before the Union....my posts take me long enough to write without adding unnecessary one finger typing.

My 'straw man' was designed to elicit a reply from you - which it got-

http://forum.caithness.org/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by John Little http://forum.caithness.org/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=958253#post958253)
Oh yes - I forgot that bit. Scotland is part of the English empire ain't it...



"Of course it is.....in fact it is one of the few bits of the Empire left over which they have total control. That is why we were subject to an incorporating Treaty of Union in 1707 rather than the federal one Scotland wanted.......incorporation gave England complete control.....federalism would have given them control only over the likes of foreign policy which impacted on both. The Union was a de facto annexation of Scotland.......but one we can get out of without taking to arms. Now aren't we luckier than the Irish or the Palestinians."

In your version England annexed Scotland and you agreed that there was an English empire over which 'England' had complete control.

In my version it was the Stuart's government in London and the Scottish Whigs who had control.

Straw man it might have been - but you grabbed it.


And just in case you forgot, my straw man was prompted by this remark of yours;

"I don't think the English are "out to get us".......I just don't think they consider us at all, or ever have. I don't think it is a deliberate mindset.......I just think it is pure unthinking imperial arrogance."

John Little
20-Jun-12, 16:44
Yes but "beliefs" need power and support = money : not mono casual, a mere statement of fact : Even Lenin ( a man of profound believes ) needed money to gain and sustain power. We mostly live in capitalist systems of varying categories / classification : democratise the middle east...the belief...the truth...gain power to control resources...to gain access to raw materials...control markets.... profits...surely : if I am missing something here then succinctly educate" me

Which examples would you like?

Chiang Kai Shek, lavishly equipped and paid for by the Americans with over 5 million in a professional army against ragged Maoist cadres?

The Vietnamese in a 30 year war?

The Scots throwing off the English with pure guts and courage in 1314?

I agree that money is important. But when push comes to shove people who fight and win often do not do it for money but ideology.

Freedom as an idea can have more power than money.

No?

rob murray
20-Jun-12, 17:05
Which examples would you like?

Chiang Kai Shek, lavishly equipped and paid for by the Americans with over 5 million in a professional army against ragged Maoist cadres?

The Vietnamese in a 30 year war?

The Scots throwing off the English with pure guts and courage in 1314?

I agree that money is important. But when push comes to shove people who fight and win often do not do it for money but ideology.

Freedom as an idea can have more power than money.

No?

I agree that money is important. But when push comes to shove people who fight and win often do not do it for money but ideology.

Freedom as an idea can have more power than money.

No ?

Yes and good examples, I dismiss 1314 though,as its really pre modernity / pre advaced capitalism, Mao...beliefs won....what is driving the modernisation of China...what new belief has surfaced....consumerism / power / wealth : Vietnam.....the beliefs that drove the struggle are again superceded by new beliefs : yes beliefs are powerful but the dialetic of power is of constant change, hence original beliefs are over taken and in most cases the replacement belief is to gain, preserve and advance wealth which buys power. So I'll meet you half way on this one, yes beliefs may start / drive change...but beliefs change : Orwell : Animal Farm ?

John Little
20-Jun-12, 17:15
Rob - Absolutely - I completely agree with you.

I'd be interested in your views on my questions about the presentation of national history on national consciousness too.

If you wouldn't mind?

Oddquine
20-Jun-12, 17:24
My 'straw man' was designed to elicit a reply from you - which it got-

http://forum.caithness.org/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by John Little http://forum.caithness.org/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=958253#post958253)
Oh yes - I forgot that bit. Scotland is part of the English empire ain't it...



"Of course it is.....in fact it is one of the few bits of the Empire left over which they have total control. That is why we were subject to an incorporating Treaty of Union in 1707 rather than the federal one Scotland wanted.......incorporation gave England complete control.....federalism would have given them control only over the likes of foreign policy which impacted on both. The Union was a de facto annexation of Scotland.......but one we can get out of without taking to arms. Now aren't we luckier than the Irish or the Palestinians."

In your version England annexed Scotland and you agreed that there was an English empire over which 'England' had complete control.

In my version it was the Stuart's government in London and the Scottish Whigs who had control.

Straw man it might have been - but you grabbed it.


And just in case you forgot, my straw man was prompted by this remark of yours;

"I don't think the English are "out to get us".......I just don't think they consider us at all, or ever have. I don't think it is a deliberate mindset.......I just think it is pure unthinking imperial arrogance."

So in response to that last remark, after which you gave birth to a strawman...why not simply prove me wrong by giving me facts which I can rebut (or not) regarding how much they consider us. Isn't that what discussion is about..arguing points?

It couldn't be because you have no facts to illustrate that the Westminster Parliament considers us at all.....could it?

rob murray
20-Jun-12, 17:31
Rob - Absolutely - I completely agree with you.

I'd be interested in your views on my questions about the presentation of national history on national consciousness too.

If you wouldn't mind?

The marxist in me see's that in adopting a dialectical "philosophy" to history / beliefs, that nothing is ever final, absolute or sacred.The approach reveals the transitory character of everything and in everything; nothing can endure before it, except the uninterrupted process of becoming and of passing away, hence beliefs being overtaken / passed over / adapted / replaced and power and its fuel advances the entire process of being .Seen this way, national history can only be defined / promoted / propogandised so as to "influence" national consciousness : in short history is defined by the victor and as everything is fluid the "victors" change, therefore does their interperation of events, meet the new boss ( same as the old boss : but with different stories ) : so the short hand guff advanced as historical truism's is always replaced, the only continuinty here is an acceptance of what I would call iconic myths, subjective interpretations of history, short hand guides to a nations historic setting /culture...in my view thats the approach and what is being peddled "ruthlessly" by the nationalists.

John Little
20-Jun-12, 17:36
So in response to that last remark, after which you gave birth to a strawman...why not simply prove me wrong by giving me facts which I can rebut (or not) regarding how much they consider us. Isn't that what discussion is about..arguing points?

It couldn't be because you have no facts to illustrate that the Westminster Parliament considers us at all.....could it?

What an odd question!

I am speaking of an English Empire, prompted by your remark that the English had or have an 'Imperial' attitude towards Scotland. 'Imperial' pertains to empires does it not? So I was wondering when Scotland became part of this Imperium.

Now you want me to give facts to you about how much the Westminster Parliament considers Scotland today!

I have never argued that Scotland receives its due attention from Westminster. It is clear that the division of powers within the Union is not balanced and needs attention. I do not dispute that.

Mind you I would not expect Scotland to receive as much attention in Westminster today as I would have say 30 years ago - Scotland has a government of her own to discuss many things.

So I am not out to prove you wrong about Scotland not having enough control over her affairs; I agree 100% that Scotland should. Whether that leads to Independence or Federalism is not for me to say.

But I do dispute the 'Imperial' attitude.

Wrong adjective.

John Little
20-Jun-12, 17:41
The marxist in me see's that in adopting a dialectical "philosophy" to history / beliefs, that nothing is ever final, absolute or sacred.The approach reveals the transitory character of everything and in everything; nothing can endure before it, except the uninterrupted process of becoming and of passing away, hence beliefs being overtaken / passed over / adapted / replaced and power and its fuel advances the entire process of being .Seen this way, national history can only be defined / promoted / propogandised so as to "influence" national consciousness : in short history is defined by the victor and as everything is fluid the "victors" change, therefore does their interperation of events, meet the new boss ( same as the old boss : but with different stories ) : so the short hand guff advanced as historical truism's is always replaced, the only continuinty here is an acceptance of what I would call iconic myths, subjective interpretations of history, short hand guides to a nations historic setting /culture...in my view thats the approach and what is being peddled "ruthlessly" by the nationalists.

That is, in my humble opinion, a damn fine answer and one of the best things I have read on the Org.

Thank you.

rob murray
20-Jun-12, 17:46
That is, in my humble opinion, a damn fine answer and one of the best things I have read on the Org.

Thank you.

JThanks, John your opening line on this post said it all " I suspect that in the next two years we are going to see a lot of History ‘manufactured’- that is to say that a version of the past will be synthesized" : Yes, really what we will witness will be a shouting match, based on subjective ( ill informed and in most cases blatant untruths and iconic myths ) ...lets just lie back and watch the farse play out eh !!

John Little
20-Jun-12, 17:52
JThanks, John your opening line on this post said it all " I suspect that in the next two years we are going to see a lot of History ‘manufactured’- that is to say that a version of the past will be synthesized" : Yes, really what we will witness will be a shouting match, based on subjective ( ill informed and in most cases blatant untruths and iconic myths ) ...lets just lie back and watch the farse play out eh !!

Aye - good idea.

The trouble with being a student of History is that although you can see the strings that we puppets dance to, it ain't always possible to twitch your own. In the end all we can do is watch how things play out.

T'was ever thus!

squidge
20-Jun-12, 20:58
In the end all we can do is watch how things play out.

T'was ever thus!

No it isnt - you can STAND UP and BE COUNTED. You can shout your beliefs and ideals from the rooftops - or from behind a computer screen lol. You can VOTE and influence the outcome you can get involved - whether your political leaning is for YES or NO. Real people will decide the future of Scotland and REAL people can get involved. Sit back and watch without being part of the most important political process for decades?????? Pfffft not me folks. I want to see, hear, read, smell and live it. Soak it up and be EXCITED about it. Whatever the outcome its the chance ot engage in the debate that is the best bit. Bring it on - i cant wait!!!!!

ducati
20-Jun-12, 21:38
No it isnt - you can STAND UP and BE COUNTED. You can shout your beliefs and ideals from the rooftops - or from behind a computer screen lol. You can VOTE and influence the outcome you can get involved - whether your political leaning is for YES or NO. Real people will decide the future of Scotland and REAL people can get involved. Sit back and watch without being part of the most important political process for decades?????? Pfffft not me folks. I want to see, hear, read, smell and live it. Soak it up and be EXCITED about it. Whatever the outcome its the chance ot engage in the debate that is the best bit. Bring it on - i cant wait!!!!!

I agree squidge, I'm lucky enough to live in Scotland. Trouble is, if you live in the rest of the UK, all you can do is watch. To me that is just wrong.

Oddquine
20-Jun-12, 23:26
What an odd question!

I am speaking of an English Empire, prompted by your remark that the English had or have an 'Imperial' attitude towards Scotland. 'Imperial' pertains to empires does it not? So I was wondering when Scotland became part of this Imperium.

Now you want me to give facts to you about how much the Westminster Parliament considers Scotland today!

I have never argued that Scotland receives its due attention from Westminster. It is clear that the division of powers within the Union is not balanced and needs attention. I do not dispute that.

Mind you I would not expect Scotland to receive as much attention in Westminster today as I would have say 30 years ago - Scotland has a government of her own to discuss many things.

So I am not out to prove you wrong about Scotland not having enough control over her affairs; I agree 100% that Scotland should. Whether that leads to Independence or Federalism is not for me to say.

But I do dispute the 'Imperial' attitude.

Wrong adjective.

Good..we are now slowly getting to the discussion stage........so what makes you think that, despite the fact that the majority of the Scottish population, in the various polls which proclaim no majority for independence.....or for the status quo, but do indicate an appreciable majority for meaningful, useful devolution of fiscal policy to make a difference to life in Scotland, we are ever going to get it if we vote NO and stay in the Union and rely on the Westminster Government relinquishing control voluntarily ?

Imperial is an attitude which can be defined as exercising supreme authority or sovereignty......care to tell me how the Westminster,( a predominantly English institution by around 4 to 1 over all non-English voices), attitude to Scotland can be otherwise described? I said what I meant, and meant what I said. Empire equates to being ruled or administrated by.....equally appropriate depending on context, imo. However I was referring to the attitude....you chose to assume you could read my mind and extrapolate that to your idea that I considered Scotland a colony of the English Empire.

John Little
21-Jun-12, 08:00
Good..we are now slowly getting to the discussion stage........so what makes you think that, despite the fact that the majority of the Scottish population, in the various polls which proclaim no majority for independence.....or for the status quo, but do indicate an appreciable majority for meaningful, useful devolution of fiscal policy to make a difference to life in Scotland, we are ever going to get it if we vote NO and stay in the Union and rely on the Westminster Government relinquishing control voluntarily ?


Now who is reading minds and extrapolating?

Or is this a straw man?

I have never thought or said that constitutional reform would be easy. However, times have changed and there is a Scottish government. If the Scottish people vote to stay in the Union with Devo Max then they will do the whole of the UK a favour because the pressure to do it would be irresistible. We might get an English Parliament and a decent system of voting to take the place of FPTP. As I have said before, Mr Salmond's greatest achievement has been that he has created the best opportunity for the Federalisation of the UK since the Act of Union; an equal partnership. In this day and age, with such a firm mandate from the Scottish people it is unthinkable that the UK government would not accede to such a reasonable demand, especially as it is being echoed in Wales and Ulster.

Imperial is an attitude which can be defined as exercising supreme authority or sovereignty......care to tell me how the Westminster,( a predominantly English institution by around 4 to 1 over all non-English voices), attitude to Scotland can be otherwise described? I said what I meant, and meant what I said. Empire equates to being ruled or administrated by.....equally appropriate depending on context, imo. However I was referring to the attitude....you chose to assume you could read my mind and extrapolate that to your idea that I considered Scotland a colony of the English Empire.

Must I remind you of what you said?

"Of course it is.....in fact it is one of the few bits of the Empire left over which they have total control. That is why we were subject to an incorporating Treaty of Union in 1707 rather than the federal one Scotland wanted.......incorporation gave England complete control"



You are attempting to use the notion of Imperium in a different sense now. On the one hand you say that you use Empire in the sense of having power and authority over yet on the other you attempt to use it in the sovereign sense.

England on its own is an empire in the second sense. Henry VIII described 'This realm of England is an empire, sovereign unto itself'. He meant that it was under one government and not subject to outside authority. This puts the finger right on why the Stuarts incorporated Scotland into one 'empire' with England. It was their imperium, over which they had control as one sovereign state.

But that is not what you meant; you meant that 'England' controlled Scotland. The UK government controlled Scotland, in the same way as the French government controls France or the US government controls their states.
Yet by the standards of the day, with Scottish representatives in the undemocratic UK parliament, it was probably as good a settlement as Scotland was going to get in 1707.

In 1707 the population of England was somewhere between 5-6 million according to most estimates- compiled from Parish Rolls etc. The population of Scotland was about 1 million.

How much time should the UK Parliament spend talking of Scotland?

Much of Darien here - a convenient peg, with aristocratic greed thrown in . Portrayed no doubt by John Hurt as in 'Rob Roy'.

And btw the Darien expedition did not fail just because the nasty English would not trade with Scotland. It failed because when the Scots attempted to set up their colony they were met by vastly superior forces of the Spanish Empire...

And aye - the mobs of Edinburgh and Glasgow were angry.

But in the rest of Scotland there had been a disastrous series of harvests up to 1707 and it's estimated that up to a quarter of the people of Scotland died of hunger.

With a government in Edinburgh.

Who do we hang that one on?

Better Out Than In
30-Jun-12, 14:52
The power of choice for the future of Scottish independence will lie with those on the Scottish voting register. So this will exclude a large number of "Scots" whom no longer live here and will include a considerable number of "new scots" from various origins who do - the latter of course do not have the cultural history of those born and bred here and so in theory their votes will be unbiased or at least based on decisions of national wealth, national amenity or personal gain.

For whatever reason (I have some doubt as to the motivation of both) there are two camps. It is important that however we chose to vote we do so based on clear factual information (which is lacking in the extreme) and don't allow ourselves to be manipulated. Unfortunately both sides have been manipulated from birth - by our parents, by teachings, by newpapers, by acqaintences and it is very hard to devorce yourself from that.

I work some of the time in England and its true that the English are more concerned with themselves than Scotland. But then the people in London are more concerned about London than Birmingham - or those in Glasgow more concerned about Glasgow. So the English are not behaving any differently from the Scots.

There are of course ten times more people in England, Wales and N ireland than Scotland so it would appear to be easy for the MP's South of the border to ride roughshod over Scotland. That happens very infrequently. The view from my London aquantices is that Scotland bats well above its weight both nationally and internationally. Alone we may lose some of that weight.

On some levels I quite like the appeal of an independent Scotland but that is an emotional reaction. The thread on the history of Scotland and England above, both real and imagined, is a truly interesting read but we should not be making decisions about our nation's future based on [possibly inherited] opinions and emotions.

On a practical level independence is a high risk strategy that no-one (including politicians) can plot the outcome of (no-one can even reliably work out whether Scotland pays more or gains more from the Union - as there are no protocols you can make the numbers support any view you want). It may work - it is more likely to be a disaster. I can barely imaging how the intertwining of UK national and international institutions, systems and processes can be unravelled and what that might do to business and investment; or even whether Scotland can afford to run its own versions.

A thought.

If you were born in Scotland with a long line of Scottish heritage but are now a long term English resident and on the English voting register what will happen after independence? Presumably you will become an Englishman.

If you are a Polish or English worker living in Scotland for a few years and on the Scottish register will you become a Scotsman with a Scottish passport?

How is that going to sit with all this emotive historical discussion?

squidge
30-Jun-12, 19:46
A thought.

If you were born in Scotland with a long line of Scottish heritage but are now a long term English resident and on the English voting register what will happen after independence? Presumably you will become an Englishman. You would be a scot living in England - just like now!



If you are a Polish or English worker living in Scotland for a few years and on the Scottish register will you become a Scotsman with a Scottish passport? No I will be an english woman living in Scotland just like now. I might be able to apply for a Scottish passport depending on the criteria or I might not but I will still be an English woman living in Scotland


How is this going to sit with all this emotive historical discussion? I think that all the differnt parts of the discussion make up the whole and hold different levels of importance depending on who you are and what is important to you - history, hearts, minds, bank balances and place in the world - all part of a whole.