|
rscott posted: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. Well I can't speak to the specific motivations of the Scottish people leading into their wars for independence. But certainly there was a serious threat to Mexican sovereignty. The only thing preventing the US from seizing Mexico outright was American public opinion against the ethics of the war. There was a series of expansionist presidents that were heavily supported by Southern slavers, and if it hadn't been for the American Civil War then it is likely that Southern influence would have led to continued expansion into Mexico. Indeed, the Confederate Secessionists were quite clear about their intent to seize control of Central America and turn it into a massive slave plantation. GimpChimp posted: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. I guess that again I have to admit that my lack of familiarity really limits my ability to discuss it. For example, it's very unclear to me what is the distinction between the First War of Independence and the Second, considering that they involve the same belligerents and occur consecutively. But everything I've read says that the wars destroyed the Scottish economy and were topped with two ruinous payments to the English crown, and it took generations for Scotland to recover.
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 17:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 17:54 |
|
|
rscott posted: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. I wasn't comparing Scotland to Mexico, I was comparing Scotland to the US. Both sides achieved their goal in the war. Similarly both Mexico and England failed miserably to achieve their goals and the fact that the other sides paid them some money doesn't turn their loss into a victory. You could certainly argue that Scotland's victory was a phyrric one, but to suggest that they lost a war of independence in which they retained their independence is bonkers. Reveilled fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Jun 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 18:39
|
|
|
Hm, it's almost as though this conversation would greatly benefit from Scottish history being taught in schools!
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 18:47
|
|
|
Well, in fairness my history lessons in school consisted of Glasgow, the clydebank blitz, the first war of Scottish independence, the viking invasions of Scotland, and the Scottish reformation. I didn't take standard grade history, and so the only non-scottish history I got in school was in higher classics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 19:02
|
|
|
I've grown up lacking an individual nationality other than British so I'm not sure if that makes me less or more biased. I can see many of the benefits Scotland would gain from leaving the Union, I think they could indeed stand on their own feet. Personally I hope they don't leave for pretty selfish reasons. By leaving they would be taking with them an incredibly rich culture and a strong pull to the political left that they currently provide to the greater UK. While I don't think the Tories would gain the iron grip many people are afraid of, I do think the Scottish provide a strong buffer to keep the English in line from far right politics sometimes. In theory though things would balance out in the end. One question I have on the subject of money. I've always been fascinated by how the current system works, Scottish notes for example are technically not legal tender anywhere (even in Scotland) while Bank of England notes are only legal tender in England and Wales. But to my point though, at present 3 private banks provide Scottish notes, Bank of Scotland, Royal Bank of Scotland and Clydesdale Bank. Would Scotland keep this current set up or would a bank be set up in the vain of the Bank of England?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:I've grown up lacking an individual nationality other than British so I'm not sure if that makes me less or more biased. This is quite evidently not the case, though, since last election Scotland only voted in a single Tory and Labour had 42% of the vote. Fat lot of good it did, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 19:36
|
|
|
Dr Snofeld posted:This is quite evidently not the case, though, since last election Scotland only voted in a single Tory and Labour had 42% of the vote. Fat lot of good it did, though. Without Scotland in the last election we would have a majority Tory Government instead of the LibDem/Conservative coalition that we have now I believe. I could be wrong, I haven't looked at the figures in-depth. I don't think Scotland decides which way the UK goes but I do think it has an influence (one I feel is positive) Mega Comrade fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Jun 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 20:21
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:Without Scotland in the last election we would have a majority Tory Government instead of the LibDem/Conservative coalition that we have now I believe. Without the SNP, we would have a majority Labour government or a Lab/Lib coalition.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 20:56
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Without the SNP, we would have a majority Labour government or a Lab/Lib coalition. What on earth are you basing this on?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 22:44
|
|
|
TheVertigoOfBliss posted:What on earth are you basing this on? The fact that Labour have held more Scottish seats than the Tories in every General Election since 1959?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 00:01
|
|
|
I misunderstood you, I thought you meant if the SNP had no westminster seats there would be a Labour governement in the UK.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 00:35
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:Without Scotland in the last election we would have a majority Tory Government instead of the LibDem/Conservative coalition that we have now I believe. I could be wrong, I haven't looked at the figures in-depth. I don't think Scotland decides which way the UK goes but I do think it has an influence (one I feel is positive) I was impressed by Salmond's move to start talking about establishing closer connections with the Scandanavian nations. What this says is that Scotland has potential trading partners whose political and economic viewpoints are actually much closer and much more natural allies than England. The implicit argument goes that an independent Scotland would be freed up to look outwith the United Kingdom at where its position in the global political landscape would be and to strengthen the ties with those countries that it wants to work with. This might not be very good for the UK, but it might be good for the Scandanavians. Similarly, we might wonder whether it is generally in the interests of the world at large for Britain to be as influential as it is, and whether it might be better for everyone who isn't British for this influence to be diminished in Scotland's decision to no longer support it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 02:00
|
|
|
One of the main reasons I will vote for Scottish independence is its track record on education - a major policy area which has always been separate from the English system and over which the Executive has had complete control since devolution. To take an example: "The Curriculum for Excellence" review was started in 2002/2003, completed in 2004 and was implemented in 2010. The intermediate High Schools qualifications (Standard Grades) will change to the new model in 2013/2014 (meaning that the first kids to sit them will have been taught under the new curriculum since their final year of Primary School). The senior High School qualifications (Highers) will remain unchanged. In other words: a major change to education practice implemented over the course of ten years. That kind of pace is an appropriate rate of change in this area and demonstrates a maturity in government which has been lacking since And then there are University tuition fees... What it boils down to is that the Scottish Executive has proven its worth to me in the policy area which I understand the most and by extension I trust them to run a country more than I trust the government in Westminster. GuestBob fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Jun 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 02:40
|
|
|
TheVertigoOfBliss posted:I misunderstood you, I thought you meant if the SNP had no westminster seats there would be a Labour governement in the UK. To some degree that is what I meant - I pulled up the wrong set of figures. Late night posting.  Still, it wouldn't be unfair to assume that the Tory position in Scotland would have been historically weaker without the SNP. Major would probably have lost the 1992 General Election, which in turn would have meant no Blair and no Cameron (who is a misguided attempt to create a Tory Blair, forgetting that Blair was a Red Tory). Odds are fairly good we would have a Tory government right now as we'd be in that part of the cycle, but it would be one of greater substance and with stronger left wing opposition. While vaguely on the subject, can anyone explain why the SNP did so well in the Scottish Parliament elections while continuing to do so poorly in General Elections?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 08:35
|
|
|
Jedit posted:While vaguely on the subject, can anyone explain why the SNP did so well in the Scottish Parliament elections while continuing to do so poorly in General Elections? Slightly anecdotal, but based on the comments I've heard people say about how they vote SNP in the Scottish Parliament elections but there being no point in voting for them in the General Elections because they won't get in I've always assumed that tactical voting was a big part of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 08:52
|
|
|
GuestBob posted:One of the main reasons I will vote for Scottish independence is its track record on education - a major policy area which has always been separate from the English system and over which the Executive has had complete control since devolution. This. You forgot to mention the review was started by a Lab/Lib coalition government but the actual implementation was done by an SNP government. In other words, it was not a partisan development.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 12:59
|
|
|
Iohannes posted:This. You forgot to mention the review was started by a Lab/Lib coalition government but the actual implementation was done by an SNP government. In other words, it was not a partisan development.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 13:18
|
|
|
Indeterminacy posted:It's partisan in the scope of the UK, in as much as "Exclude the loving blues" is partisan. That it isn't partisan in the scope of Scotland just goes to show... something, I guess. But it isn't just the political differences, it is how politics is conducted. Carrying on with the previous example: the Curriculum for Excellence came out of the "National Debate on Education" - here's how that worked: SE Press Release posted:The National Debate was launched on March 20 2002, and the deadline for feedback was July 12. So the process was as open and consultative as anything which could have been practically conceived. The revolutionary part was that when this impartial advice was received, it was acted upon for what it was: the informed opinion of professionals and interested parties (parents and students). If Gove asked for teachers' opinions I think there would be more than one head teacher hitching up her skirt or dropping his trousers to befoul some stationary. GuestBob fucked around with this message at 13:41 on Jun 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 13:35
|
|
|
Sorry been out of the loop, was out enjoying the terrible wet and windy weather during most of the week. As for renewable energy it has been a successful and profitable thing in my Region for over 70 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galloway_hydro-electric_power_scheme 106 MW peak output, no resource costs, installed for the massive cost of £29 per KW and the only recurring costs have been for maintenance and staffing. Oh and there was one village where Loch Ken is now that was evacuated and flooded to make way for one of the reservoirs. E: got my units wrong. Jinkii fucked around with this message at 14:32 on Jun 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 14:30
|
|
|
Iohannes posted:This. You forgot to mention the review was started by a Lab/Lib coalition government but the actual implementation was done by an SNP government. In other words, it was not a partisan development. It's worth noting that the SNP did try to derail it a bit with partisanship, though, particularly when Fiona Hyslop was education minister. She had no real understanding of the issue and kept trying to force local authorities to keep things as they were pre-Curriculum for Excellence in a way that wasn't at all possible under the new structuring (such as maintaining the S1-S2 schools in rural areas even though the CfE's structure treats S1-3 as a single block now). Her involvement was described to me as 'bull in a china shop' by a couple of educational administrators. Agreed though that the general process has been much better handled than anything Gove is trying to do at the moment south of the border.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 17:10
|
|
|
Kind of funny actually, discussing this, given Gove's leaked plans to return English education back to O-levels. By 2014 no less! The difference between Scottish and English politics (technically) really is galling.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 17:13
|
|
|
John Charity Spring posted:It's worth noting that the SNP did try to derail it a bit with partisanship, though, particularly when Fiona Hyslop was education minister. She had no real understanding of the issue and kept trying to force local authorities to keep things as they were pre-Curriculum for Excellence in a way that wasn't at all possible under the new structuring (such as maintaining the S1-S2 schools in rural areas even though the CfE's structure treats S1-3 as a single block now). Her involvement was described to me as 'bull in a china shop' by a couple of educational administrators. Like how Labour have tried to make hay over the possible (and likely) delay over implementation of the new nationals even though it was their government who approved the timetable and qualifications in the first place. Partisan point scoring hasn't stopped, but the curriculum is a culmination of years of constructive non-partisan discussion and that is why the Scottish education system is far better than the English one. That and education is seen as a social mobility exercise and one that should be open to all. In England it was always the reserve of the rich and Gove wants to make it like that again despite the fact that Gove was educated in Scotland. For instance, Scotland had 4 universities 300 years before England even had 3. In 1800 Scotland's literacy rate was pushing 85%, 22% greater than England's 63%. Basically, Scotland has always given more of a poo poo about education.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 00:20
|
|
|
If i may i would like to enter an opinion that will split the Scots as much if not more than the independence issue does. The Corries awful "Flower of Scotland" shouldn't be our national anthem, it is a horrific dirge that if anything blows smoke up the English's arses, even with the Tartan Army's alterations. Our anthem should be "Caledonia" by Dougie MacLean, where Flower of Scotland mourns my nation Caledonia speaks to a yearning for it as it is, it is a celebration of Scotland rather than a dirge about its demise. http://youtu.be/4Z-IZ2FDGBY E: adding video Jinkii fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Jun 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 00:55
|
|
|
Iohannes posted:For instance, Scotland had 4 universities 300 years before England even had 3. In 1800 Scotland's literacy rate was pushing 85%, 22% greater than England's 63%. Aren't we getting a little carried away? I would be surprised if 85% of the population of Scotland spoke Scots in 1800. Iohannes posted:Basically, Scotland has always given more of a poo poo about education. Perhaps a different flavour of poo poo. Even the bluest Scottish Tory would raise an eyebrow at the idea of "Free Schools" - it just isn't in the cultural DNA. South of the border, and post-Thatcher, many people are much more willing to accept the idea that it is the State part of State School which is the problem. The Scottish public doesn't entertain this idea to the same extent - which is good, because it is utter shite. It's not that people in England care less about educational problems, it's just that the solutions which have been chosen are wrong and the way successive governments have implemented those solutions has been wrong. It is much easier to make successful policy in Scotland (on this front at least) because there is a wider consensus about what goes into the box marked "things which the government does" - it is easier to please everybody without having to create half a dozen different types of school. And that argument further reinforces the idea that Scotland not only has a separate political identity, but that an independent Scotland would be effectively governed because of that political identity (rather than this being some "gently caress the poll tax" malarky). Here's an interesting little point on education though: Scotland has five Universities in the top 200 in the world - that's almost one world class University per million people (Times Higher Rankings). It has fifteen Universities in total and a whole bunch of decent Colleges (high level vocational qualifications like HNDs and HNCs have always been popular in Scotland, whereas their popularity dropped off in England over a decade ago to be replaced by a plethora of This is fan-dabby-dosey but how would this system be supported in the same style post independence? I would love to see Scotland bring back the Fresh Talent initiative but I wonder whether international markets alone could support the cost of so many Universities. I can't decide whether this is a problem or an opportunity. Could Higher Education become one of the pillars of an independent Scottish economy? GuestBob fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Jun 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 01:18
|
|
|
Thats what this thread needed, more Krankie's references, a comedy double act that has never been commissioned on Scottish television fyi. The fact that Scotland has promoted education has never been in doubt, St. Andrews University was the first campus of higher education that wasn't linked to the church of Rome.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 01:24
|
|
|
Jinkii posted:The fact that Scotland has promoted education has never been in doubt, St. Andrews University was the first campus of higher education that wasn't linked to the church of Rome. Pish! St. Andrew was created by Papal Bull - Benedict the XIII! The University of Edinburgh was created by Royal Charter (King James the VI) in 1582 - it was initially funded by a mixture of a bequeathment from Bishop Reid and the Edinburgh Town Council. It was known as "Tounis College" until 1617 - the world's first civic University. During the 18th and early 19th Centuries, Edinburgh was the place to send your son if you were part of the dissenting middle class. Unlike Oxford and Cambridge, Edinburgh had no religious requirements for its students. So there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 01:34
|
|
|
The Anti-pope created St Andrews? yeah thats what happened, Scotland was in the grip of the non-reformed protestant movement at the time, John Knox was the hand on the tiller, the main reason sectarian conflict is still evident today in Scotland, but nice try. Its not like godbotherers to change accepted history is it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 01:43
|
|
|
Jinkii posted:The Anti-pope created St Andrews? I only recognise the authority of the Alexandrian Pope. St Andrew's still wanted the blessing of a man in a dress, Edinburgh didn't. Secularity denied.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 01:50
|
|
|
Jinkii posted:If i may i would like to enter an opinion that will split the Scots as much if not more than the independence issue does. This is endemic to national anthems of a certain age. In the Jacobite period God Save The Queen had a verse added about crushing the rebellious Scots, and the first verse of Deutschland Uber Alles is traditionally only sung on special occasions like when a German is incredibly stupid and/or wants to piss everybody off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 08:27
|
|
|
Jedit posted:This is endemic to national anthems of a certain age. In the Jacobite period God Save The Queen had a verse added about crushing the rebellious Scots, and the first verse of Deutschland Uber Alles is traditionally only sung on special occasions like when a German is incredibly stupid and/or wants to piss everybody off. The 60s were certainly known for their intolerance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 10:11
|
|
|
Jinkii posted:The Anti-pope created St Andrews? The Scottish reformation was 1560. St Andrews was founded by a papal bull from the Avignon pope in 1411. So, yes, St Andrews was very much a pre-Reformation foundation. Sure, Andrew Melville turned its School of Theology into one for the Protestants and St Andrews was a home to people like Knox and George Buchanan, but St Andrews was part of the Catholic university system in a way that Edinburgh never was. Glasgow and Aberdeen were both founded before the Reformation too. Technically, Scotland had 5 universities before 1600 since Aberdeen had two: King's College and Marischal College that were only merged to form Aberdeen in 1654. GuestBob posted:Aren't we getting a little carried away? I would be surprised if 85% of the population of Scotland spoke Scots in 1800. Iohannes fucked around with this message at 10:47 on Jun 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 10:42
|
|
|
strange posted:The 60s were certainly known for their intolerance. Sorry, I forgot to add "But gently caress the Corries anyway". Yes, I'm aware that Flower of Scotland is rather more recent than those other anthems. The point, though, is that national anthems do tend to be nationalistic and as I've said before, nationalism always has an "us versus them" component. The anthems that don't are often written by people from a different country, like the Japanese anthem (the lyrics are traditional, but were not written for an anthem), and of course the ones that have no lyrics at all like Spain's.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 10:52
|
|
|
Jinkii posted:If i may i would like to enter an opinion that will split the Scots as much if not more than the independence issue does. No. I don't begrudge you your negative opinion of Flower of Scotland, although I do not share it, however your choice of a replacement is terrible. Caledionia by Dougie MacLean posted:I don't know if you can see the changes that have come over me That is not what a national anthem should be lyrically. For one thing, it's written from an individual perspective. When considering national anthems you have to think about 50,000 people in a stadium singing it, not a dude with a folk guitar.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 10:54
|
|
|
Jamsque posted:That is not what a national anthem should be lyrically. For one thing, it's written from an individual perspective. When considering national anthems you have to think about 50,000 people in a stadium singing it, not a dude with a folk guitar. An argument that leads to making Runrig's "Alba" the national anthem. Which is far from the worst idea I've heard from a musical point of view, and luckily not enough Scots speak Gaelic to know what the words mean, but it's not exactly anthemic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 11:02
|
|
|
Jedit posted:An argument that leads to making Runrig's "Alba" the national anthem. Which is far from the worst idea I've heard from a musical point of view, and luckily not enough Scots speak Gaelic to know what the words mean, but it's not exactly anthemic. I'm not saying national anthems have to be football chants, but they shouldn't be lilting folk ballads either. There is a middle ground between the two that I think Flower of Scotland occupies quite nicely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 11:34
|
|
|
The subject of the Scottish national anthem has been one that has crept up every once in a while politically. I believe the last poll was that people were content with Flower of Scotland, with something like 41% of the vote. Scotland the Brave came second at 29%. I think it does the job really.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 11:54
|
|
|
Caledonia is a bit syrupy, like something they'd sell in the gift shop at Deep Sea World. Still, at least it's not Ireland's Call. Nothing is as bad as Ireland's Call.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 12:17
|
|
|
WMain00 posted:The subject of the Scottish national anthem has been one that has crept up every once in a while politically. I believe the last poll was that people were content with Flower of Scotland, with something like 41% of the vote. Scotland the Brave came second at 29%. I would vote for Scotland the Brave as the anthem solely so I could sing the obscene version (AKA Scotland's Depraved) at official gatherings. This has nothing to do with the debate in hand, however; I just don't like national anthems. I once signed a petition to have the current version of God Save The Queen replaced by the Sex Pistols song.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 12:43
|
|
|
I dislike flower of Scotland for being a bit too mopey. It works okay as a song while Scotland is part of the UK, but I don't think it works as a song for an independent nation given the second verse. My personal preference would be the internationale but barring that I would suggest an enthusiastic reading of Scots Wha Hae with only drums for musical backing. You can get through the whole poem in the usual time alotted for anthems at sporting events, and it sounds much more inspiring than flower of Scotland (when done as a recital instead of the awful slow hymn version at least).
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 12:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 17:54 |
|
|
Reveilled posted:I dislike flower of Scotland for being a bit too mopey. It works okay as a song while Scotland is part of the UK, but I don't think it works as a song for an independent nation given the second verse. My personal preference would be the internationale Well, now we all know which side you're on. The Internationale is explicitly about people of all nations standing together, as separately they will be destroyed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 14:05
|
|