MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
The Union Jacks I see are frequently displayed in the wrong way, which signals surrender. Although maybe the people are trying to tell us something.
Scots Independence?
- Thread starter Pangur Bán
- Start date
redtom
Proudhonist
Britishness isn't entirely false because we do share one island together.
I've met Welsh people are more proud to be British than I am, even more than they are to be Welsh.
There is a sense of joint history in Belgium as half of Belgique (?) people speak French.
The reason you don't see the British flag is because the BNP has hijacked its good name - I saw plenty British flags down here during the World Cup. There was plenty of British Flags north of the border during the World Cup - according my uncle.
Pillager
League of Empire Loyalist
So? How long as Belgium existed as a sovereign country? Britain has existed for 300 years.
Do you question the right of the US to call itself a nation? 300 years ago it didn't even exist. The southern states are vastly different to the northern states, the country has acquired itself over the years.
I recognise that it's not the same, as we were sovereign countries before the UK was constructed, but that doesn't compromise the fact that today we are one sovereign nation.
No, I didn't. I said:
"For nationality purposes, I am British. Obviously, England does exist, but to the ROW it is Britain."
Meaning that we are represented abroad not as England, but as Britain. Whether foreigners want to call us English is up to them, but my point was that, as a national identity is often defined against foreigners, the fact that we are as a country Britain means that it is a legitimate nation.
redtom
Proudhonist
Important quotes on the matter:
'...this royal throne of kings...this scept'rd isle...this earth, this realm, this England' - William Shakespeare.
'Britain is an island' - Roy Strong
'Great Britain, two partitioned, poly-cultural islands' - Oxford History of Britain
'In Britain everything is different...when people say "England", they sometimes mean "Great Britain", sometimes "United Kingdom", sometimes the "British Isles" - but never just England - George Mikes (1946)
'...this royal throne of kings...this scept'rd isle...this earth, this realm, this England' - William Shakespeare.
'Britain is an island' - Roy Strong
'Great Britain, two partitioned, poly-cultural islands' - Oxford History of Britain
'In Britain everything is different...when people say "England", they sometimes mean "Great Britain", sometimes "United Kingdom", sometimes the "British Isles" - but never just England - George Mikes (1946)
President Clark
Warlord
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2002
- Messages
- 110
Us British are too interbred with everyone else on this island for anyone of us to want complete independence, besides Britain has achieved many great things as a united country, heck, we only keep our power status becuse we are unionised.
Northern Ireland would have to go back to the republic if any one state wanted independence. You couldn't share it, noone would want it.
As for the misrepresentation of Scots, I'd like to point out that Charles Kennedy is head of the Liberal Democrats, Gordon Brown ,a Scot, is chancellor and Tony Blair was born in Scotland.
Scots aren't misrepresented, we gave them a Parliment more money than England gets every year, which is being devolved into regions.
Northern Ireland would have to go back to the republic if any one state wanted independence. You couldn't share it, noone would want it.
As for the misrepresentation of Scots, I'd like to point out that Charles Kennedy is head of the Liberal Democrats, Gordon Brown ,a Scot, is chancellor and Tony Blair was born in Scotland.
Scots aren't misrepresented, we gave them a Parliment more money than England gets every year, which is being devolved into regions.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
1. That all depends on how you see history. If you see the UK as a totally new entity formed by an equal partership between Scotland and England, then that's fine. If you're less deluded and see the UK as the name for England after it annexed Scotland, then it's just idle quibbling. However, I'll dispute your contention that a conquered nation can be called a "partner"
2. That's a vacuous argument if ever I heard it! Jeopardize past achievements? And what great things would stop happening if the UK died it's long overdue death. For the Scots, independence would be a godsend, and would begin to reverse the centuries of disasterous Anglicization of their culture and education system.
3. Scottish politicians have hardly made a mess of devolution. That is taking exaggeration to the extreme and it's total and utter garbage as well. You've been listening to too many negative journalists methinks.
5. Blair's claims can't have been shown to be false, unless he said that nationalism would lessen in the first few years of the parliament. Wake up, it has only been 3 years!
FrosTi
Indépendantiste Québécois
Hmmm... If Scots get independance before Quebec I'll get very disappointed 
De Lorimier
North American Scum
You guys should stop this before Ozz comes back and calls you "nit-wits" too...
TheStinger
Warlord
Scotland was not conquered, its parliament voted to join in a union with England, therby creating the UK.
The legal system has been independant of England during the time of union.
The Devolved parliament controls education.
Your culture will not stop being "Anglicized" by independance, England is becomming more influenced by American culture and last time I checked it was independant from the US
Hamlet
Manic Depressive
Scotland was not conquered, but then again, nor was the pursuit of the Act of Union completely fair. There was an awful lot of dodgy business associated with it. I'd say by todays standards, it would be classed as particularly unfair in the way it was achieved.
And what Anglicisation? Scotland has a very rich and unique culture through it's press, legal system, politics, etc.
And what Anglicisation? Scotland has a very rich and unique culture through it's press, legal system, politics, etc.
Pillager
League of Empire Loyalist
1. I see history correctly. That both countries saw the advantages of union, and both voted to join each other.
2. I see no vacuity in my argument. I think that both Englishmen and Scots should be proud of what Britain has given to the world, and that we should all be proud in our one United Kingdom. Your Anglicisation argument is a different issue.
3. I dispute that. It has been a shambles.
Hamlet
Manic Depressive
'Fraid your deviating from reality on that one. There was an awful lot of bribery by Queen Anne's government, who made money freely avalible to Scottish representatives who supported the idea of Union, and lets just say the Scottish population were not exactly 'convinced' - rioting in Edinburgh and Glasgow occured in the decades after, and of course, there was support for the Jacobite cause by large portions of the population.
Pillager
League of Empire Loyalist
Yes, but the Scots saw the advatages of Union and so joined. There was some 'convincing', as you say, but the Scots were in dire trouble, IIRC, and union presented the best way out of it.
TheStinger
Warlord
Alot of English people supported the Jaccobites aswell, the rebellion caused a British civil war not a war between England and Scotland
Hamlet
Manic Depressive
I don't think anybody saw the 'Advantages of Union'. It was simple coercion. There was no enlightened debate, there was no argument.
It was a completely presurised, almost forced action, and it's not a part of my history I'm particularly proud of - it could have been achieved through far more legitimate means.
When, and why?
There were actually some moves towards indepedance; possibly the inviting of James to come back as Scottish monarch and break the monarchical union with England.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
1. Wrong again. The Scottish ruling class were ruined by the Darien adventure. The Darien adventure was itself ruined because of an English conspiracy against it. The only reason that it came about in the first place was because the English parliament were passing laws against Scottish trade. When "Union" came about, the parliamentarians were offered compensation for their Darien losses, that was the "bribe". Thus it was a problem engineered by the English and solved to there own benefit. Many of the ruling class faced the ruin of their positions if they did not accept. There is also the fact that it was widely understood by the Scottish parliamentarians that force would be used if the Union was not agreed to.
Another important fact was that the Scottish negotiators were in fact chosen by the Crown, which was under the control of the English govt.
The fact is, many of the terms of the treaty were violated almost immediately. The English state did not essentially change, but Scotland ceased to exist. It wasn't a Union at all, it was straight forward annexation. The change of name to "Great Britain" was not as significant as it may appear. The English had already been using the term interchangably with "England" for centuries, so it was not much of a sacrifice to make the annexation more palatable to the Scots. Anyway, the term "Great Britain" was hardly used at all in diplomacy and politics by the "British" govt untill after the American Revolution.
In addition to all that, the 1715 rebellion was a rebellion fuelled mostly by hostillity to the "Union", and it was crushed militarily. As for the 1745 rebellion, it had very little support in England and most of the volunteers had the idea of independence, even though BPC probably didn't gives a toss.
The "Union" was an annexation, if not a outright conquest.
2. It's a big issue, but some forms of Anglicization have been disasterous. One example is higher education. In the 18th and for most of the 19th century, the Scots had the best universities and education system in Europe. In the mid 19th century, the "British" govt cynically changed the tests for civil service entry
in favor of graduats coming from thje backward Oxford and Cambridge. It was devastating to Scottish higher education, and as a result of this and other Anglicizing changes the Scottish universities have declined significantly.
Another significant Angicization is this: before the Union and (to a limited extent) for about 100 years after it, the Scottish leading lights saw the Scotland as the center of a culture equal to any other and superior to many. The Union created the effect that people felt "provincial", creating a devastating disregard for the qualities of Scottish institutions and the Brain Drain to the South.
It lead also of course to the view that the English language was somehow superior, disregarding the fact that the best "English" poetry of the Middle Ages and Ren. was in Scots and not English. That's nothing compared with the decline of Gaelic, which I'll admit was declining anyway without the Union.
But even today, craven Scottish newsreaders who've hardly ever been to England will say awll instead of all and baa intsead of bar.
Indicating the inferiority complex created by what I will call the Union annexation.
3. I don't mean to be rude, but I doubt you know enough about Scottish politics to make that kind of judgement. But you could try to prove me wrong, and tell me why.
Pillager
League of Empire Loyalist
1. I had always thought that the English withdrew support from Darien adventure because they were afraid of losing out economically, which would be understandable, not as part of a long-term plan to subjugate the Scots, and 'conquer' them, and that the view you put forwards was the view of supporters of Scottish independence, as opposed to being accepted fact.
Either way, the Darien adventure was undertaken because the country was already in serious financial trouble, due to wars and poor harvests, etc. It was a way to try to avoid union with the English. However, it was exceptionally reckless, and was never going to end any differently form how it did. I agree that this event led directly to Union, but I would argue that Scotland was already in serious trouble, and this was merely an effort to escape from this - i.e., the failure of Darien was the straw that broke the camel's back.
2. Well, I have no problem with Scottish identity, in that I don't see it as inferior to English identity. I would like us to encompass both within the Union, as is done now. There were systematic attempts to stifle Scottish customs in the past, as there are attempts to stifle British customs today. I think both attempts are at the least regrettable, but, not being Scottish I don't see it as a reason to break away from the Kingdom. I am English, not Scottish, but I am British first. I love Scotland as a brother nation, I love England because I'm English, and I love Britain above both.
3. I wasn't making a judgement on Scottish politicans per se, I was saying that since devolution there have been severe problems. Not as a reflection on the Scottish character or ability to have their own government, but as a reflection on the devolution process itself. My point was that it's not as simple as setting up a room full of more politicans in Edinburgh and expecting it to go well - at least the problems experienced by devolution will, I hope, have led some to think more about it, as opposed to saying that a Scottish Parliament, in whatever shape and form, will be preferable.
Either way, the Darien adventure was undertaken because the country was already in serious financial trouble, due to wars and poor harvests, etc. It was a way to try to avoid union with the English. However, it was exceptionally reckless, and was never going to end any differently form how it did. I agree that this event led directly to Union, but I would argue that Scotland was already in serious trouble, and this was merely an effort to escape from this - i.e., the failure of Darien was the straw that broke the camel's back.
2. Well, I have no problem with Scottish identity, in that I don't see it as inferior to English identity. I would like us to encompass both within the Union, as is done now. There were systematic attempts to stifle Scottish customs in the past, as there are attempts to stifle British customs today. I think both attempts are at the least regrettable, but, not being Scottish I don't see it as a reason to break away from the Kingdom. I am English, not Scottish, but I am British first. I love Scotland as a brother nation, I love England because I'm English, and I love Britain above both.
3. I wasn't making a judgement on Scottish politicans per se, I was saying that since devolution there have been severe problems. Not as a reflection on the Scottish character or ability to have their own government, but as a reflection on the devolution process itself. My point was that it's not as simple as setting up a room full of more politicans in Edinburgh and expecting it to go well - at least the problems experienced by devolution will, I hope, have led some to think more about it, as opposed to saying that a Scottish Parliament, in whatever shape and form, will be preferable.
FrosTi
Indépendantiste Québécois
Right...
Similar threads
