|
The clue is in the name of the war. The Wars of Scottish Independence. At the end of the war, Scotland was independent. Claiming England won is like claiming America won in Vietnam. Anyway I was just responding to some ridiculous point about England invading an independent Scotland in the future, didn't mean to start a medieval derail. And people shouldn't worry about what the SNP is going to get up to post-independence. The SNP are going to do exactly one thing after they win, which is break up. They have right wing shitheads, they have liberal shitheads, they have the currently dominant vaguely centre left shitheads, they have socialists and the only thing keeping them together is independence. So who cares about Alex Salmond having a stupid policy on corporation tax. Who cares about Donald Trump or Rupert Murdoch. The important thing is getting us out of this tory infested United Kingdom. Then we can see what we are dealing with.
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 23:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 16:54 |
|
|
Jinkii posted:not necessarily, it could go the other way, the UK treasury already robs the people of England and Wales of Fees free higher education, free OAP care and free prescriptions, Scotland hasn't raised taxes at all since Devolution, using the same pool of cash given to the Labour/Libdem co-alition in the first term of the Scottish Parliament, that money has to be going somewhere. Yeah, I was trying to phrase it neutrally because I know people on this board have very strong opinions about whether the Eurocrisis is due more to tight German monetary policy or loose Greek fiscal policy. But the opposite - where Scotland runs a small, balanced budget while the Bank of England goes crazy printing pounds to pay for more nuclear submarines or something- would also have a bad outcome. WMain00 posted:The public sector is absolutely huge on Scotland, which is both a good and a bad thing. The bad thing is that private investment is moderate, but has been fairly stagnant for the last 20 years, mainly because most businesses choose to invest in London, Manchester etc. Whether you like it or not investment in creating a strong private sector does have its advantages and the snp feel that the only way to achieve that is lower corporation tax, thus enticing investment into the country. Who handles environmental policy - is that power devolved to Scotland, or is it set in London (or Brussels)? If Scotland introduces stringent new requirements for wind energy, for instance, that could attract new manufacturing up there. Or if they promoted local production of food as a substitute for imports from the rump-UK, that could also goose the private sector. Hell, they could even mandate a certain percentage of "Scottish content" in the media, like Canada does. I get that you're not necessarily arguing for a lower corporate tax, just relaying the SNP's argument, but it seems like there are ways to grow the private sector while simultaneously promoting environmental and social objectives with more merit than "Rupert Murdoch gets a tax break".
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 23:06
|
|
|
I believe environmental policy is devolved to Scotland. Certainly I know that Scotland has its own environmental agency, SEPA. Also what you've described kinda already goes on. We are putting a lot of incentives into renewable energy development and the return has been private investment within this sector. The SNP's lofty goal is to make Scotland the "Saudi Arabia" of renewable energy. It's kind of an optimistic attempt, but its nice to see a Scottish party reach high rather than go "no, we can't do that."
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 23:18
|
|
|
WMain00 posted:Also what you've described kinda already goes on. We are putting a lot of incentives into renewable energy development and the return has been private investment within this sector. The SNP's lofty goal is to make Scotland the "Saudi Arabia" of renewable energy. It's kind of an optimistic attempt, but its nice to see a Scottish party reach high rather than go "no, we can't do that." There was a hilarious Unionist attack ad about that Saudi Arabia soundbite that said something along the lines of "See, Salmond wants to be King! Like the King of Saudi Arabia!" Scotland seems to be quite well-endowed with the sort of features that renewable energy thrives on. It's wet, it's got lots of rivers, it's hilly, it's windy as balls...
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 23:22
|
|
|
When the rest of the UK has hosepipe bans we have the entire Highlands draining into the Tay estuary. Give it 30 years and we'll be exporting fresh water to England and Europe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 23:27
|
|
|
Iohannes posted:When the rest of the UK has hosepipe bans we have the entire Highlands draining into the Tay estuary. Give it 30 years and we'll be exporting fresh water to England and Europe. I think there was a report to that effect on the news today, but I only caught a little bit of it so all I got from it was "drat but Scotland is wet." e: vvv Well there we go then.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 23:32
|
|
|
Iohannes posted:When the rest of the UK has hosepipe bans we have the entire Highlands draining into the Tay estuary. Give it 30 years and we'll be exporting fresh water to England and Europe. Oh, it wont take that long... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-18508884
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 23:33
|
|
|
Dr Snofeld posted:Scotland seems to be quite well-endowed with the sort of features that renewable energy thrives on. It's wet, it's got lots of rivers, it's hilly, it's windy as balls... How popular is renewable energy in Scotland by the way? And if it's very popular, is there any particular reason? A large part of the reason for why we've supported it in Denmark is the Oil Crisis, which hit us really hard*, and I wonder if its something similar in Scotland? *90% of our energy came from oil back then, of which 99%(!) was imported. Now we've of course turned ourselves into a net exporter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 23:36
|
|
|
The vast majority of our hydro potential was exploited decades ago unfortunately. Although it rains a lot we dont have many significantly sized rivers in upland areas essentially. Wind and tidal power however we have bucket loads of potential. Westminster shiteing it and pulling the carpet from under the renewables sector has left investors very nervous. Doosan were on the verge of building a site in Leith to be a major hub in the construction and assembly of north sea wind turbines but it eventually fell through which was a real shame as it would be fantastic for the area. Similarly the wind turbine factory in Kintyre has gone into administration a few times now and is only being kept open by government subsidies at the minute.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 00:05
|
|
|
Dr Snofeld posted:I think there was a report to that effect on the news today, but I only caught a little bit of it so all I got from it was "drat but Scotland is wet." We are so wet that parts of scotland get 4000mm of precipiation annually and the forests on the western coast are actually classed as rainforests. A Buttery Pastry posted:It's sunny...wait. But really, the political will to really push for it is a big part as well. Better to deal with those challenges before everything turns to poo poo. Most people I would say are apathetic to where their energy comes from, but I'd say most people are receptive to the idea that the energy's just there for us to take it as an inexhaustable reserve much like our water is (though in practise our water's not quite inexhaustable). I think people are generally aware of the Government's message that Scotland stands to benefit a lot from renewables, and when they show up in the news they tend to show up in a positive way, or in a way that makes them seem positive even if the substance of the story is not so--for example, back during Hurricane Bawbag last year there was a bit on the news about them having to turn off all the wind turbines because they were making too much electricity, which came across as "our wind turbines are actually too good". Certainly I don't think Donald Trump's lunatic campaign against them did the idea any harm, the massive loving hissy fit he blew because we built a wind farm next to his private golf course could have powered a few turbines all on its own, and I never met a single person throughout that whole debacle that thought Trump was getting anything other than his just desserts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 00:18
|
|
|
Practically every developed and semi-developed country is trying to be the "Saudi Arabia of renewable energy" now, though (including Saudi Arabia).
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 00:19
|
|
|
What's a hosepipe ban? Yorkshire  e: I hope Scotland gets independence so I can flee there when they inevitably declare the thousand-year Tory Reich in England. ContinuityNewTimes fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Jun 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 00:34
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:It's sunny...wait. But really, the political will to really push for it is a big part as well. Better to deal with those challenges before everything turns to poo poo. The only real objections to wind turbines and such are the NIMBY lines (or NNMGC, Not Near My Golf Course), complaints about them making the place look ugly. Which is ridiculous, because wind turbines look awesome. Something about the white casing and smooth lines, very future-chic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 00:39
|
|
|
Dr Snofeld posted:The only real objections to wind turbines and such are the NIMBY lines (or NNMGC, Not Near My Golf Course), complaints about them making the place look ugly. Which is ridiculous, because wind turbines look awesome. Something about the white casing and smooth lines, very future-chic. Finally someone else who agrees that wind turbines look awesome. There's a load east of Dundee and they look so futuristic and, well, awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 00:43
|
|
|
Iohannes posted:Finally someone else who agrees that wind turbines look awesome. They stuck some up near where I live a while ago and they look a drat sight nicer than the crop of ugly american radomes we have.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 00:44
|
|
|
Also, Scots should be proud of Scottish Water being nationally owned. gently caress privatised utilities.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 00:45
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:You still haven't explained how this means England won the war. Scotland was independent at the end of the war. The war was fought by England to annex Scotland into the Kingdom of England. This goal was not achieved. In fact Scotland rose up, overthrew the English, defeated them at Bannockburn, successfully invaded Yorkshire and came within a few feet of killing Edward III in the final battle of the war (which Scotland won). But the English won the first war of independence? The details are longer than I'm willing to go into for a derail, but to summarise: while the Scots had won battles they knew they were going to lose the war if it was pressed. That is why in the peace treaty negotiations the English were able to demand that the Scots pay £20,000 - a sum so huge that a special tax had to be levied to pay it - in order to return to the status quo of 1306. If the Scots had been in any kind of superior position they would not have needed to accept those terms, nor would the English have asked for them. Moreover, the only reason the English were negotiating in the first place was because they needed to turn their attentions to the French. By accepting the terms, Scotland abandoned its staunchest ally - not something you do unless supporting them isn't tenable. Any road up, I think we've derailed the thread enough with military history.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 00:45
|
|
|
Iohannes posted:Also, Scots should be proud of Scottish Water being nationally owned. gently caress privatised utilities. And you can drink it right out of the tap! Truly we live in a land of wonder.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 00:48
|
|
|
Baracula posted:They stuck some up near where I live a while ago and they look a drat sight nicer than the crop of ugly american radomes we have. I think I like them even more now I know Donald Trump hates them. And the reason, Donald, why they might not put wind turbines off St Andrews (though, the university has applied for planning permission to do just that) is that the golf courses of St Andrews are public property and people didn't lose their houses for them to be built for your ego, you enormous orange turd.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 00:54
|
|
|
Scotland currently produced something like 25% of its energy from renewables so we have good foundations upon which to build, certainly vastly more significant than England. Britain is in a strange position energy wise. Despite producing vast quantities of gas and oil we are net importers of both and because of that bastard Thatcher we produce very little coal relatively so we are a massive importer of that as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 01:01
|
|
|
Iohannes posted:Finally someone else who agrees that wind turbines look awesome. Yep, wind turbines are great. I absolutely disagree with the nimbyist bollocks that says they ruin landscapes - there's a bunch on the road between Aberdeen and Inverness and they only enhance the landscape. The SNP have a really schizophrenic policy on renewables - they trumpet the benefits loudly and proclaim their intention to develop them, but then oppose local initiatives to build wind farms because they see that as the populist, vote-winning strategy. That's what happened in the Hebrides.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 01:07
|
|
|
Jedit posted:The details are longer than I'm willing to go into for a derail, but to summarise: while the Scots had won battles they knew they were going to lose the war if it was pressed. That is why in the peace treaty negotiations the English were able to demand that the Scots pay £20,000 - a sum so huge that a special tax had to be levied to pay it - in order to return to the status quo of 1306. If the Scots had been in any kind of superior position they would not have needed to accept those terms, nor would the English have asked for them. Moreover, the only reason the English were negotiating in the first place was because they needed to turn their attentions to the French. By accepting the terms, Scotland abandoned its staunchest ally - not something you do unless supporting them isn't tenable. I know you're desperate to get the last word here, but "England would have won the first war of independence if the war hadn't ended" is not the same as "England won the first war of independence", no more than "The Mongols would have conquered Japan if their fleets hadn't been destroyed by a storm" is the same as "The Mongols conquered Japan". You've been furiously moving the goalposts to try and get out of admitting the fact that your original statement was utterly untrue. Scotland did not lose the First War of Independence. John Charity Spring posted:Yep, wind turbines are great. I absolutely disagree with the nimbyist bollocks that says they ruin landscapes - there's a bunch on the road between Aberdeen and Inverness and they only enhance the landscape. I'm going out to visit a windfarm in a few weeks time. My dad went out a few months ago and said it was quite niice to walk around the park in the shadow of the turbines. I've always rather liked wind turbines myself, and agree they are a boon to the landscape, not a blight.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 01:30
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:I know you're desperate to get the last word here, but "England would have won the first war of independence if the war hadn't ended" is not the same as "England won the first war of independence", no more than "The Mongols would have conquered Japan if their fleets hadn't been destroyed by a storm" is the same as "The Mongols conquered Japan". You've been furiously moving the goalposts to try and get out of admitting the fact that your original statement was utterly untrue. Scotland did not lose the First War of Independence. Well, then, I can only offer Scotland my congratulations for being the only nation in history to win a war in which they surrendered and paid reparations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 08:39
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:We are so wet that parts of scotland get 4000mm of precipiation annually and the forests on the western coast are actually classed as rainforests. Reveilled posted:Most people I would say are apathetic to where their energy comes from, but I'd say most people are receptive to the idea that the energy's just there for us to take it as an inexhaustable reserve much like our water is (though in practise our water's not quite inexhaustable).  Dr Snofeld posted:The only real objections to wind turbines and such are the NIMBY lines (or NNMGC, Not Near My Golf Course), complaints about them making the place look ugly. Which is ridiculous, because wind turbines look awesome. Something about the white casing and smooth lines, very future-chic. Of course, not wanting a wind turbine right next to your house is understandable, since they can be pretty noisy. (They can of course also explode) TheVertigoOfBliss posted:Scotland currently produced something like 25% of its energy from renewables so we have good foundations upon which to build, certainly vastly more significant than England. Well, thank you all for answering my question. Makes independence look like an even better idea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 08:47
|
|
|
The wind turbine that exploded during Hurricane Bawbag was visible from my bedroom window, but I was in Dundee at the time. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 08:50
|
|
|
PiCroft posted:The wind turbine that exploded during Hurricane Bawbag was visible from my bedroom window, but I was in Dundee at the time. god I miss home sometimes. The only place on earth that a hurricane would be named after a ballsack. (I realise that's likely not what it was called but it's amusing. )
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 08:58
|
|
|
Officially it was named Friedhelm and was a mid-latitude storm, but Hurricane Bawbag quickly caught on and became the sort of pseudo-official title for the storm.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 10:48
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Well, then, I can only offer Scotland my congratulations for being the only nation in history to win a war in which they surrendered and paid reparations. It would have been very impressive if Scotland had actually surrendered, or if the England's goal in the war had been to extort money from Scotland, but that aside we wouldn't be the only nation in history to achieve this. Apparently the USA achieved this feat in the Mexican-American war too, surrendering to the Mexicans and paying them reparations to the tune of 18 million dollars in direct payments and assumed debts. Tithin Melias posted:god I miss home sometimes. The only place on earth that a hurricane would be named after a ballsack. (I realise that's likely not what it was called but it's amusing. ) It actually was called that. I mean, it's official name was Friedhelm, but the papers, councils and politicians all regularly referred to it as Hurricane Bawbag.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 11:19
|
|
|
I have a feeling that independent Scotland would be an awesome country but on the other hand I would be sad if UK breaks up, Wales, Scotland and England have always seemed to have more in common with eachother then otherwise. (Northern Ireland is just wierd)
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 13:45
|
|
|
Coming from the English side of the border, I'd be really disappointed if you decided to become independent. I've got many Scottish friends, and lived in Edinburgh for a while. I have a strong sentimental attachment to the UK, and in the event of Scottish independence having to show my passport to get on the East Coast line from London to Edinburgh would, to me, be a shame. Of course, a bunch of English people missing you isn't a reason for Scotland not to leave the Union. While living there, it was always very clear to me that Scotland was a different country with its own culture - although nearly the same can be said for Newcastle and London. In my view, a fully federal UK would be preferable, with England broken up along regional lines. I'm hoping the NE Assembly vote is repeated in a decade or two, except this time with powers more along the lines of the Scottish Parliament. Edit: ^^ 
Aethernet fucked around with this message at 13:52 on Jun 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 13:49
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:Coming from the English side of the border, I'd be really disappointed if you decided to become independent. I've got many Scottish friends, and lived in Edinburgh for a while. I have a strong sentimental attachment to the UK, and in the event of Scottish independence having to show my passport to get on the East Coast line from London to Edinburgh would, to me, be a shame. Well, if it makes you feel better, the last country on the british isles to become independent from the UK does not require British citizens to show a passport on entry, so it's entirely possible (and I would say very likely) that Scotland will remain part of the Common Travel Area upon independence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 13:58
|
|
|
Im not up to speed on how the terminology of UK politics works, so bear with me. If Scotland left the UK would it also leave the Commonwealth or stay in it? And if it left or stayed what are the benefits of each decision?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 16:09
|
|
|
Errant Gin Monks posted:Im not up to speed on how the terminology of UK politics works, so bear with me. If Scotland left the UK would it also leave the Commonwealth or stay in it? And if it left or stayed what are the benefits of each decision? Apparently the SNP, as revolting monarchist pieces of poo poo, want the queen to remain head of state, and Scotland as part of the Commonwealth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 16:15
|
|
|
Errant Gin Monks posted:Im not up to speed on how the terminology of UK politics works, so bear with me. If Scotland left the UK would it also leave the Commonwealth or stay in it? And if it left or stayed what are the benefits of each decision? This kind of stuff isn't really known at this point, the plans for independence aren't ready. SNP, de facto the only significant pro-independence party at the moment, however isn't willing to separate from the Commonwealth and in fact support at this point keeping Scotland a Commonwealth realm, i.e. under the gracious rule of Lizzie. Also, I'm probably going to be voting yes basically as a gently caress the Tories vote. Scottish nationalist sentiment isn't really something I care for, whereas not having Middle Englander shits vote on Scottish affairs is. Skeleton Jelly fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Jun 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 16:22
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:It would have been very impressive if Scotland had actually surrendered, or if the England's goal in the war had been to extort money from Scotland, but that aside we wouldn't be the only nation in history to achieve this. Apparently the USA achieved this feat in the Mexican-American war too, surrendering to the Mexicans and paying them reparations to the tune of 18 million dollars in direct payments and assumed debts. I don't really know much about the specifics of Scottish military history, but the USA certainly never surrendered to the Mexicans. After defeating the Mexican Army and occupying Mexico City, the capitol, the Americans forced the sale of 55% of Mexican territory for $18 million (~$480 million today). If that's a Mexican "victory" that's comparable to the Scottish one, I can understand Jedit's point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 16:38
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I don't really know much about the specifics of Scottish military history, but the USA certainly never surrendered to the Mexicans. After defeating the Mexican Army and occupying Mexico City, the capitol, the Americans forced the sale of 55% of Mexican territory for $18 million (~$480 million today). If that's a Mexican "victory" that's comparable to the Scottish one, I can understand Jedit's point. Reveilled's point was that one country conceding money to another in a peace treaty that is otherwise entirely favourable to them doesn't automatically constitute a loss/surrender on their part.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 16:47
|
|
|
GimpChimp posted:Reveilled's point was that one country conceding money to another in a peace treaty that is otherwise entirely favourable to them doesn't automatically constitute a loss/surrender on their part. That's fair, but neither does a country retaining independence necessarily constitute a victory. As one might say: The Devil's in the details.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 16:57
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:Coming from the English side of the border, I'd be really disappointed if you decided to become independent. I've got many Scottish friends, and lived in Edinburgh for a while. I have a strong sentimental attachment to the UK, and in the event of Scottish independence having to show my passport to get on the East Coast line from London to Edinburgh would, to me, be a shame. It's highly unlikely that would occur. Pro-union reports have tried to spin the idea that an independent Scotland would require passport checks at the border. As if Hadrian's Wall would somehow spring up again and nobody would be allowed in and out of Scotland without rigorous checks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 17:12
|
|
|
Kaal posted:That's fair, but neither does a country retaining independence necessarily constitute a victory. As one might say: The Devil's in the details. When the whole reason why you're fighting the war is to retain independence, I think it does constitute a victory, and that's why comparing it to the Mexican War is not a very good comparison. IIRC despite all the dumb manifest destiny bullshit prevalent in 19th century American nationalism there wasn't any serious threat to outright Mexican sovereignty.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 17:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 16:54 |
|
|
Kaal posted:That's fair, but neither does a country retaining independence necessarily constitute a victory. As one might say: The Devil's in the details. Generally speaking yes but as mentioned we are talking about the First Scottish War of Independence not the First Scottish War to Hold Onto £20 Grand Indefinitely so I don't know what finer details would possibly overturn that. I realise we are way past the point of self-parody in time spent debating feudal history in a modern-day Scottish independence thread. But it fuckin' irks me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 17:20
|
|