'The Union'

Kennysevenfold · 10 Oct 2011 at 18:49

I want away from england,we are simply better in everyway.

nydryl · 10 Oct 2011 at 18:49

Angilion said:
That was part of my point. The other part being that going back to the middle ages to blame England for everything (including numerous things that never actually happened) in order to promote irrational prejudice in the present and future is wildly inaccurate as well as ridiculous.

Sorry skimmed your first post, see what you were meaning now. The majority of Scottish people only need to go back to the 1980s to find reasons to blame England for everything anyway

RDM · 10 Oct 2011 at 19:05

nydryl said:
Sorry skimmed your first post, see what you were meaning now. The majority of Scottish people only need to go back to the 1980s to find reasons to blame England for everything anyway

You need to go a bit further back than that and blame successive governments for propping up ailing industries, unions for resisting modernisation and management for not adapting to a changing global market. Thatcher didn't kill Scottish industry, she just turned the life support off.

Pinkribbonscars · 10 Oct 2011 at 19:43

eddiemcgarrigle said:
Fixed.

What would be the point of independence if you kept the pound? You'd be less able to influence monetary policy than now, and monetary union without economic union has been recently proved to be a bit rubbish!

Biohazard · 10 Oct 2011 at 20:08

Angilion said:
the Scots started it in 1138 by using an English civil war as an opportunity to invade England

I think William the Conqueror and a few others might have been forgotten here.

However if you are being serious trying to attribute a more simplistic 'they started it' in the context of the history of the British Isles it is somewhat odd given the nature of the competing kingdoms and length of time since past but I’ll come to that.

It might also be wiser to go further back, and blame the Normans, Britons, Vikings as well and those who lived before them. The Scots king traditionally had a strong claim to Cumbria as part of the kingdom of Strathclyde for example. The feudal overlord of Northumbria had reason to regard Lothian as part of his historic domain; the Scots king however saw Northumbria as an unattached sub-kingdom to which his own claim as over-king was as good as anyone else's. Regardless of the treaties made with Norsemen before the period you mentioned it is unlikely the King of Scots would be allowed to forget that the Pictish kingdom had once encompassed all of those parts of the mainland, and the then Norwegian Isles also. Scotland - and England I would note - during this period were not wholly clear or defined entities. "Confirming" these boundaries were of paramount importance economically and strategically for then Scottish crown.

However, I suspect this will merely be dismissed as Scotland doesn't seem to be given the same recognition of rights in these periods occasionally. So I will resort to throwing in some "spurious" dates and so forth. During the creation of Scotland/Alba around Donald II's reign, it wasn't unknown for Britons from the south to invade the north around the same time as the Viking incursions. So much so that in one short period two kings fell to Vikings and one to a Britony invasion, and a fourth to internal strife co-incidentally. Again in the year 934 Athelstan, King of Wesex and Mercia, having taken over Northumbria a decade before invaded Scotland by land and sea. In response, both Scots, Britons and Norsemen all retaliated with a landing on the soleway coast. And so forth century after decade etc. ****, bringing up an army to re-inforce the ancient status quo of overlordship or domination by force as an example was not unique to these lands either. Scotland even gained recognition of the Lothians in this process. It's how things worked.

This game could go on forever. To pick a later part of history, and go 'look at them bloody Scots it's their fault they started it' or anyone else is rather bizarre and most definitely pointless to be honest. It wasn't as easy as Scotland V England then, nor is it now. But in my view if I must, throwing all what I have just finished typing out the window, "You" started it.

It has one caveat. It’s not really a bad thing (when accurate) competition, war, imperialism, and the ancient game of power by numbers and everything else were all perfectly natural in the annals of history. Which is something some people seem to forget in a bid to entrench in a bitter war of attrition which has spanned the milenia between the constituent nations of the UK..

The Anglo-phobia that has been mentioned, I get the impression that it is overemphasised towards being a near Scottish only phenomena or certainly more endemic but maybe I’m hoping for too much here. Someone mentioned that it is a mind frame from the past and where it should remain which is correct but because of our quite often competing interests in many ways it has fostered into a underlying cultural basis for our national identities. It also ties in with the historical view, which for a very long time was tenuous and volatile. See what someone else has to say on it..

This thesis examines and analyzes Englishmen’s perceptions of Scots during the years between the Revolution of 1688 and the Shawfield Riots of 1725. In 1707, the Scottish Parliament convened for the last time and Scottish parliamentarians began to sit in the Westminster Parliament. The Treaty of Union of 1707 created a united British polity and economy. But many Englishmen held biased views of Scots, and these ingrained prejudices did not diminish despite the formation of a British government and market. English disdain for Scotland’s people, religion, culture and economy in the early eighteenth century had seventeenth-century antecedents, and a litany of Anglo-Scottish political crises that occurred from 1688-1725 exacerbated this contempt. The two objectives of this thesis are to demonstrate that the 1707 Union did relatively little to improve English opinions of Scots and to explain how anti-Scottish prejudices adversely affected the development of national identity in early-eighteenth-century Great Britain.

http://etd.auburn.edu/etd/handle/10415/1119

Biohazard · 10 Oct 2011 at 20:20

nydril said:
The majority of Scottish people don't want independence. Don't mistake a vote for the SNP as a vote for independence.

Windle said:
The majority of Scots dont want or support independence. If they did the referendum would be done and dusted long ago.

div0 said:
b) that just because people have voted for the SNP in Scotland, doesn't mean that they support the idea of independence.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/yes-voters-take-lead-in-new-independence-poll-1.1121712

SUPPORT for independence has moved ahead of opposition to Scotland’s breakaway from the UK for the first time in more than three years, and for only the second time since a series of polls on the issue began exactly four years ago.

The latest TNS-BMRB poll, published today by The Herald, shows those who would vote Yes for independence ahead by 39% to 38%

The last time those who back Scotland going it alone were in front was a one-off lead for independence supporters in spring 2008.

This is the second shift towards support for Independence since the election in May, not many papers had the integrity to publish this time round mind you.

Biohazard · 10 Oct 2011 at 20:25

Windle said:
Whatever pal, speak to the folk in Paisley etc about independence and what you get is "aye, independence all the way. Screw the English". There is no thought behind it, just ignorance and stupidity and IN MY EXPERIENCE the majority of independence supporters fall into the same category. Again, sure there are exceptions. Folk with their own political views and reasons for supporting independence but I'd say they are the minority.

Do you think the current levels of near equallity between support for Unionism and Independence in polls, currently in nationalist favour, mean both sides are equally as offensive and irrational? By extention, I take it people with their own political views and reasons for supporting the Union are a minority?

Or do you think you may have to get out of Paisley sometime soon?

mushroomsoup · 10 Oct 2011 at 20:26

I'm Scottish, vote Tory and support the union. I'm also interesting in the proported idea of the re branding of the Conservative Party in Scotland. Its also quite funny sometimes how stereo typically prejudiced people are here about the conservatives...

I'm sometimes a little dismayed at the amount of English people who want to kick Scotland out of the union though..

Biohazard · 10 Oct 2011 at 20:30

mushroomsoup said:
I'm Scottish, vote Tory and support the union. I'm also interesting in the proported idea of the re branding of the Conservative Party in Scotland.

I'm sometimes a little dismayed at the amount of English people who want to kick Scotland out of the union though..

Why? It is their right if they want redress from the UK.

Anyway, do you think the Scottish electorate that stupid to be duped by a mere re-branding?

What about the more radical remedies that have been put forth by Murdo?

Rifkind has thrown is hat in his corner..

http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Sir-Malcolm-Rifkind-backs-Fraser.6850474.jp?articlepage=1

I have to say they are right. Ruth Davidson the fabled "Lesbian Kickboxer" will only cement the decline of the party north of the border.

Castiel · 10 Oct 2011 at 20:32

Biohazard, me ole mucker, where you been?

Cosimo · 10 Oct 2011 at 20:34

Castiel said:
Biohazard, me ole mucker, where you been?

Serving time. I jest.

Castiel · 10 Oct 2011 at 20:36

simulatorman said:
Serving time. I jest.

Many a true word spoken in jest.... :eek:

Elixir · 10 Oct 2011 at 20:36

I was wondering when Biohazard wouldn't be able to resist anymore.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm Scottish but I'm also British. I don't want independence, and I don't think enough of Scotland will vote for independence in the foreseeable future for this to be a topic. Let's all just get along. I also love how us Scots have a big reputation for being bitter and England-haters, however English people seem to slate us far more than we slate them.

Biohazard · 10 Oct 2011 at 20:41

Castiel said:
No it is not. The Bank of England is a UK institution, however while it was based loosely on a concept devised by a Scotsman it was actually founded by an Englishman.

Get your facts in a row....

Do the BoE have their facts wrong?

lliam & Queen Mary
When William and Mary came to the throne in 1688, public finances were weak. The system of money and credit was in disarray. A national bank was needed to mobilise the nation's resources.

William Paterson
William Paterson proposed a loan of £1,200,000 to the Government. In return the subscribers would be incorporated as the Governor and Company of the Bank of England.

The Royal Charter
The money was raised in a few weeks and the Royal Charter was sealed on 27th July 1694. The Bank started life as the Government's banker and debt-manager, with 17 clerks and 2 gatekeepers. In 1734 the Bank moved to Thread-needle Street, gradually acquiring land and premises to create the site seen today."

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/history/index.htm#2

No mention of the Earl of Halifax. It also contradicts the sources used for the wiki article.

Biohazard · 10 Oct 2011 at 20:44

Elixir said:
I was wondering when Biohazard wouldn't be able to resist anymore.

It's like an itch.

Castiel said:
Biohazard, me ole mucker, where you been?

Itching itches on the interwebs. Furthering your political belief nightmare.

PS I got your email, sorry I didn't reply. Too much fan mail you see makes the inbox near inoperable, it's a pain I tell ye.

Biohazard · 10 Oct 2011 at 20:59

[TW]Fox;20266058 said:
Most of the population can just about manage to vote on reality television let alone something far more complex and far more important like this. Any such vote would be decided by the tabloid press who would effectively tell the readership how to vote by way of biased and ridiculous reporting.

I disagree. Scotland is a perfect example. Especially when it comes to the SNP.

[TW]Fox;20266058 said:
I'm glad we dont give the population a say in stuff like this. The idea is that we elect people to make these decisions for us. It's not perfect and its deeply flawed but its marginally less scary than Man In the Street being able to decide on a subject he knows nothing about and wouldn't bother to research anyway.

I'm sad Westminster doesn't trust you or I. The argument you present is nearly enough justification to remove the franchise and install a dictatorship.

You can't pick and choose. It is incompatible to say we are able enough to use our franchise in deciding for the UK and the relevent fallout, but we can't on wider issues.

[TW]Fox;20266058 said:
As Sir Winston Churchill very aptly put it..

'The best argument against democracy is a 10 minute conversation with the average voter'

Sums up the man, the politics and the country at the time. Still that way in certain respects.

borich_planner · 10 Oct 2011 at 21:10

Can Cornwall declare independence?

Castiel · 10 Oct 2011 at 21:25

Biohazard said:
Do the BoE have their facts wrong?

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/history/index.htm#2

No mention of the Earl of Halifax. It also contradicts the sources used for the wiki article.

It was proposed by William Paterson, it was founded by the British Government and specifically Queen Mary, who Paterson expressly stated that the Bank Act would have been quashed in the Privy Council but for Queen Mary, who, following the wish of her husband. expressed firmly in a letter from Flanders, pressed the commission forward, after a six hours' sitting.

He proposed the idea, the Lords founded it.

Biohazard · 10 Oct 2011 at 21:33

Castiel said:
It was proposed by William Paterson, it was founded by the British Government and specifically Queen Mary, who Paterson expressly stated that the Bank Act would have been quashed in the Privy Council but for Queen Mary, who, following the wish of her husband. expressed firmly in a letter from Flanders, pressed the commission forward, after a six hours' sitting.

He proposed the idea, the Lords founded it.

Your source? It seems to contradict what the BoE say themself. It doesn't answer the question either to be honest. Are the BoE wrong?

More:

BoE said:
The beginnings
The revolution of 1688, which brought William and Mary to the throne, gave England a measure of political stability unknown for nearly a century. Commerce flourished, but the public finances were weak and the system of money and credit was in disarray. The goldsmith bankers had been damaged by the lax financial management of the Stuart kings. There were calls for a national or public bank to mobilise the nation's resources. Many schemes were proposed. The successful one, from William Paterson, envisaged a loan of £1,200,000 to the Government, in return for which the subscribers would be incorporated as the "Governor and Company of the Bank of England". Although the new bank would have risked its entire capital by lending it to the Government, the subscription proved popular and the money was raised in a few weeks. The Royal Charter was sealed on 27 July 1694, and the Bank started its role as the Government's banker and debt-manager, which it continues today.

They don't give prominence to anyone else, or the House. It was Patterson and his merchants. He was later involved in Darien. Wiki quote;

"He was a co-founder of the Bank of England, and it is said that the project originated with him in 1691. On the foundation of the bank in 1694 he became a director"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Paterson_(banker)

Gerard · 10 Oct 2011 at 21:36

Ahleckz said:
There's always been a massive anti English sentiment when it comes to sport. On the news the other day they were effectively pleading with Scottish fans not to boo the Lichenstein anthem because it's the same tune as God Save The Queen. Ignore sporting events, they mean nothing.

Always found it funny that the English Anthem gets Booed by probably the same people who are chanting rule Brittania at Celtic V Rangers games. Apparently no problem with Britain but a problem with the Queen, scenario dependant.