Posted on 09/19/2014 8:55:10 AM PDT by Fenhalls555
Sure enough, with plenty to defend, including North Sea petro.
The district voting map of Scotland was fascinating. Glasgow
was pure Yes.
The turnout impressive and the Scots are darn smart people. Love em.
Its equivalent to a Canadian, Australian and South African Premier.
The head of a regional government.
Offered very little in the way of articulating what the Scottish independence movement was about aside from appearing in selfies with 'Yes' supporters with his tongue sticking out.
He was no John Adams, that's for sure.
Incredible turnout.
Wish we had that for US elections. (80%, 90%)
This guy was lying thru his piehole in his efforts to promote secession. He was promising everyone no hurt whatsoever as a result. He shouldn’t be allowed to simply quit. While the Scots probably deserve a better deal from the Empire at some point they have to get off their socialist buttz and put a list together. They represent only i/10th of the Brit population and, as with the Irish, would probably be eating bad spuds if they try to make it outside the Commonwealth.
So, just who was responsible for shipping off all of those Protestant Scots to the north of Ireland to create what you essentially describe as a free nation which composes one quarter of the so-called United Kingdom?
It was the English was it not? I am not in favor of separating the island known as Great Britain into three parts just because of centuries old tribal settlements. Rather, I favor one island nation. I also favor one island nation for Ireland. In that case, the English stacked the deck with Scots Irish Protestants, and we have seen the tragic result of that.
The real problem is that historically the English have never been kind to the areas they conquered, and make no mistake about it, England conquered Scotland, Wales, Ireland, India, Kenya, etc. They were great conquerors but they were unkind rulers.
Let it go. The British colonies got the English language out of it and contact with the rest of the world and a major military power who could make it safe for them to advance.
The same was true of Latin America and the Spanish empire - the colonies had their resentments and the Spanish could have done better by their colonies, but likewise the colonies got the language and trade and military contacts with a great empire.
Colonies were regarded by the colonial power as a source of raw materials and a market for finished goods, which was exactly the problem the U.S. had. Probably because we were not exclusively colonized by one group or had various slightly dissident groups involved, we were able to reject this model.
But the other former colonies, including those that are now independent, have got to stop sitting around obsessing on their past grievances and have got to move on.
The problem is that fantasy nationalism creates the perfect platform for a leftist demagogue - or rightist, if you look at Hitler.
1—James VI of Scotland/James I of England and Ireland actually. Although the English had conquered Ireland before he united the two crowns. In fact, prior to 1603, Scots had fought FOR the Irish, most famously the Gallowglasses (’red legs’) mercenaries from the West Highlands. It was James who sent thousands of Scots from the Lowlands to Ulster.
Please remember the mass migration was less to do with oppressing the Irish (as James and the migrants were Scots and not English) and more to do with the famine which hit Lowland Scotland in the early 1600’s. If that famine hadn’t hit my part of Scotland, its likely that few Scots would have actually emigrated. English and Welsh settlers had gone in small numbers. Would a famine free lowland Scotland or Scotland as a whole have sent more?. I am not sure.
Its possible that without the large Scots migration, the 1641 rebellion would have driven the smaller English/British population out completely. NO N Ireland today. No Ulster Scots/Ulster Protestants and their culture.
Also a forgotten part of history is actually how the Scots and ‘native’ Irish intermarried and connected more than people think. Remember the backbone of your rebellion were not Cath Irish, but the very Ulster Scots we are talking about. And they emigrated because they felt equally as treated poorly as the Catholic Irish.
2—I don’t not favour a United Ireland, firstly, the South has no claim on the north since 1998 so a United Ireland can now never happen. Secondly, fervent pan-Irish Nationalism has much less support than of old. Thirdly, I would support an independent NI, free from either the ROI or the UK. And imo most Irish Nationalists would support it, as long as it ‘gets the British state out’. But not a united Ireland. Frankly, a small minority in both Irelands wants that now.
As a Brit who lived through the IRA, I find the idea of a United Ireland viscerally wrong. It would reward terrorism and murder. I am sure you understand why.
3—No, England never conquered Scotland. It did so with Wales and Ireland.
4—Again, it was a BRITISH empire. With huge influence from the Scots, Ulster Scots, Welsh and Catholic Irish. And I will defend the Empire. Yes, we had our dark moments, moments of shame. BUT imo the world is better for the British Empire having existed. The backbone and the foundations of the modern world and the success of many countries today is British Imperial Rule. Its pluses outweigh its minuses. It’s good outweighs it’s bad.
Glasgow’s was more an anti-tory protest vote than actual nationalism.
And yes, we are, lol. Scotland should be proud of its engagement in this vote. Nice to see the positive comments about us from the US and other countries.
Why? He is a far left radical.
From what I’ve read Salmond leads the National Socialist Party. Shades of the past
I appreciate the history lesson, FRiend
Lets not forget that the Catholic Irish themselves are nothing but invaders and conquerers, who destroyed the original Beaker People of the island.
"I don't like the sound of 'ese 'ere 'Boncentration Bamps.'"
Some old notes on Ireland I have that may be of interest:
a-—’Historian Brendan O’ Buachalla has stated that in the 17th and 18th centuries,there was extensive intermingling and intermarriage between the new Scots settlers and the ‘native’ Irish,so that by the 19th century,there existed in Ulster several population groups,apart from many individuals scattered here,partly of Irish descent,partly of Scottish descent and Irish in language and belonged to one of the Protestant faiths’
Ian Adamson ‘The Identity of Ulster’ (1982) page 15
b—’The fact that many native Irish became Protestants is well illustrated for example by the Hearth Money Rolls for the Presbyterian parishes of Stranorlar and Leck in Donegal for the year 1665,as well as the by the presence of old Cruthinic names such as Rooney,Lowry,MacCartan and MacGuinness in the records of the Episcopalian Diocese of Dromore in South and West Down.Representatives of other well-known Gaelic families abound.Murphys,Maguires,Kellys,Lennons,Reillys,Doghertys and many others are quite numerous.Historian Brendan Adamas has shown that quote “a large part of the native Irish became absorbed in areas such as the North Down into the various Protestant faiths” ‘
Adamson The Ulster People(1991) page 60
c—’Neither must it be assumed that all the Scottish emigrants to Ulster in the Plantation were Protestant.For some were Scottish and English Catholics.Thus a letter from the Bishop of Derry to the Lord Earl of Abercorn in 1692 says that “Sir George Hamilton since he got part of the Popery there,has brought over priests and Jesuits from Scotland”.Historian A Perceval-Maxwell has shown that within just a generation one of the most sucessful parts of the ‘Protestant’ Plantation was in fact led by Roman Catholics’
Adamson(1991)—page 60
‘There was much intermarriage,with or without the benefit of the clergy than convential history makes allowance for. Many planters became Catholic and many natives became Protestant.
It is a gross and emotional oversimplification to see the Ulster Plantation in terms of ruthless Protestants seizing land and chasing the Catholics into the bogs and the hills.
‘In fact,history and recent archaeology shows us that in fact a very substantial proportion of the original population was not disturbed at all’
ATQ Stewart: ‘The Narrow Ground-Studies of Ulster History’(1986)
ATQ Stewart, btw, is THE great Ulster historian of the last 50 years. Respected by both sides.
Our last leader departed DC in 1989.
I think one of the distinctions that throws off those in the US trying to follow these events is a misunderstanding between conflicts of nation-states and conflicts of religious alliances.
As the nation-states changed “established” religions, that caused shifts in unity between the various nations completely separate from the issues of nation power and national military supremacy.
This is so very foreign to US history as while we had some “established” religions in individual colonies that carried over past the revolutions the wars and power struggles on this continent were only influenced by religion in the most indirect manner.
I was hoping for independence, because Scotland could not possibly afford the socialism they wanted. Thereby, England would immediately become Tory, and Scotland would become a socialist wasteland, until the Scots learned to become conservative.
Oh well. They can all stay in their middling muddle.
Thank you for providing an explanation to those who hadn’t a clue here. Seeing the strange interpretation of how things are here in the UK by those who haven’t a clue has been frustrating.
Not to be morbid, but there are far easier, less agonizing ways to do it, vs Hari-Kari, if ending it all is the intention. Who knows, in that culture, the level of suffering may be equated with sincerity of intent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.