Redstarstranraer

The MoD seem to think they'll finally have it under control by 2032.

Aye Fort George to close by 2032, Kinloss spared 'for the foreseeable future' (which hardly sounds like a cast-iron commitment to keep it to me). As you say Fallon has shuffled off back down to London to announce this from the dispatch box, as quite clearly announcing it when he was up here would have been bad form: Fort George in the Highlands is to close as an active barracks in 16 years' time, BBC Scotland understands. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-37876561

These two statements taken together really don't add up. You think it's a good thing to be able to take the government to court for acting beyond their legal authority but then the judges should be criticised for slapping the government down because they got the judgement 'wrong'? That really makes no sense whatsoever. We need an independent judiciary but we should barrack and hound judges who take decisions that are politically unpopular because they're 'up on a pedestal' and make unpopular judgements?? You either believe in the independence of the judiciary or you don't, it's that simple. You apparently don't. And the Supreme Court, funnily enough, is part of the judiciary; we don't have a Supreme Court to chastise judges for making unpopular decisions but as the final legal court of appeal on legal terms. If they overturn the decision it will be on legal terms, not because you or Nigel Farage don't like it. You see the thing is it really doesn't 'work both ways'. The courts are tasked with determining (independently as you suggest) solely if the government in situations such as this has acted legally and within the limit of the powers it possesses. As I and any number of posters have pointed out the government on this occasion was found in court by said independent judiciary to have been intending on exercising its executive power in a manner that was incompatible with the fundamental principle of parliamentary sovereignty. That's a straightforward legal question and nothing more. In this instance this is nothing to do with 'metropolitan elites' or judges getting things 'wrong' or acting in accordance with their own political leanings; it was the opinion of the court the government had proposed to act in an unconstitutional manner, nothing more. But then you knew that. Nobody is putting these judges 'on a pedestal' (like the way you slipped in the junior docs there as well, top trolling, shame you don't know what trolling is); they were asked and have given their opinion on the legal position as is their proper constitutional role. The fact that the same British judges exalted just a few months ago by the leave campaigners as fundamentally superior to their European counterparts, the very same judges to whom it was imperative more 'control' be given, have turned around and infuriated the Brexit camp by, erm, upholding the British constitution, is absolutely priceless. Mind you I'm all in favour of undermining the power of the Westminster elite. I'm not going to pretend however that the likes of Boris Johnson, John Redwood, Liam Fox or Jacob Rees-Mogg are somehow outsiders to it or 'men of the people'.

There are actually a number of substantive points in what renton wrote there which are as near to 'proof' as you are going to get on a football forum of the negative attitude towards the First World War that the majority of the British populace took in the 20s-30s (and indeed even after the Second World War). There is certainly a lot more there than 'waffle' about Haig's reputation. It is a widely-accepted historical fact that between the wars a very large section of the British population, most likely a majority, were entirely cynical about the motivation, conduct and outcome of the Great War. Their criticism went well beyond questions of Haig's personal competence. The pacifists who opposed intervention in the Spanish Civil War for example or allowing Mussolini to occupy Albania and Abyssinia weren't the lone voices crying in the wilderness; it was the more what we would term today 'hawkish' politicians who advocated a military confrontation with the fascist regimes (or even just increasing defence spending domestically) who were on the political fringe for almost two decades. The very fact we embarked upon a policy of appeasement speaks to the entrenched anti-militarism of the interbellum period. In terms of historiography a fairly negative view of the First World War probably does emerge more consistently from the 50s onwards (but amongst historians, it should be pointed out, generally old enough to have developed their attitudes in that inter-war period) but it is clearly evidenced culturally well before that. Indeed this negative view which I suppose can be summed up as that the political and strategic imperatives that impelled Britain to fight the Great War were not worth the tremendous human sacrifice that it cost us has been the dominant view for decades. It is only relatively recently historical dillettantes like Dan Snow have been foisting their views on the public to try and convince us that it was both 'all worthwhile' and 'actually not that bad'.

Ridiculous post. I didn't realise that if you didn't attend the funeral of or send flowers to the family of a murder victim you can't legitimately claim to feel outraged by the offence. Many people would have been outraged, privately, at the killing of a British politician in broad daylight by a lone nutcase without doing anything particularly to express their disgust at the act publicly. The fact that many folk did nothing much to express their disgust at the murder does not in any case justify an attitude of total indifference to it or an attitude of ignoring threats of similar political violence on the basis that 'folk get threatened all the time' or 'folk get murdered all the time': that's a total non-sequitur.

This. Absolutely appalling that the fact that a woman has brought a court case (and won it) over what was essentially the government overstepping the mark in its use of its executive powers apparently makes her and the judges who ruled in her favour 'fair game' for some people to make threats and dish out some pretty horrendous abuse. Even more worrying is the way the media in this country have essentially not only endorsed this behaviour but actively incited it by labelling them 'enemies of the people' and calling on folk to 'fight for their freedom'. Despite what the Express or Mail says this isn't 1940 and the EU or remain campaigners aren't Hitlerites. This after more than a year of relentless anti-immigrant and anti-foreigner bile which has reached the point of the Mail using EUROPEAN as a pejorative. Ironic really that the political climate across the whole of the UK has become much more toxic over the past few years thanks in large part to those very same publications that were (and sometimes when they remember we exist still are) full of hypocritical hand-wringing 'concern' about the repercussions of the Indyref on our society. And also that after spending years campaigning for 'control' to be wrested from Brussels and handed to our own elite these same publications and people are demanding said elite be dismantled and control handed to, er, someone else.

All this talk of this decision 'blocking Brexit' is of course entirely unfounded and disingenuous; Brexit will almost certainly still happen in one form or another. It perhaps does somewhat strengthen the hand of those pushing for a 'soft' Brexit depending on how events develop but the idea that these judges have stymied any possibility of Brexit at all is just hysterical hyperbole. May will now (assuming she doesn't win the appeal and on the face of it that seems unlikely) have to go to parliament and presumably get some form of 'Brexit Bill' passed through both Houses but given the amount of pressure they will be under to ensure the referendum result is upheld I really can't see a majority of MPs actually 'defying' the supposed will of the British public; the venom directed towards the High Court judges and the campaigners who brought the challenge is just a taste of what many of them would receive if they entirely scuppered the Brexit process. Indeed they may receive a healthy dose of such bile even if they refuse to endorse a 'hard' Brexit, especially if for example they keep free movement of people in return for access to the Common Market. Anyway the manner in which the press (wilfully) and a hefty chunk of popular opinion (mostly through ignorance) is prepared to totally miss the point on this ruling is actually genuinely concerning for our democracy. All that the High Court has decided here is that the government cannot use their executive powers through the Royal Prerogative to push through an exit from the EU as it infringes parliamentary sovereignty; i.e. that very same British parliamentary sovereignty supposedly so loved by the Brexiteers and undermined, ironically, by 'unelected judges'. Since we joined the EU (or EEC as it was then) European law has been part of British law, hence leaving the EU alters British domestic law. It also removes 'rights' such as appealing to the European Court of Justice. Traditionally (well since the 17th century anyway) the British constitution, such as it is, has held that the Crown (i.e. the government) cannot override legislation using its prerogative powers. Only parliament can alter or override legislation through more legislation. As the judges actually commented in the judgement: "An important aspect of the fundamental principle of Parliamentary sovereignty is that primary legislation is not subject to displacement by the Crown through the exercise of its prerogative powers." Hence seeing as the High Court took the view that triggering Article 50 and leaving the EU through the invocation of the Royal Prerogative would do just that it is legally incompetent and beyond the government's executive powers: "The Crown cannot, through the exercise of its prerogative powers, alter the domestic law of the United Kingdom and modify rights acquired in domestic law under the ECA 1972 or the other legal effects of that Act. We agree with the claimants that, on this further basis, the Crown cannot give notice under Article 50(2)." Contending that the supposed 'Great Repeal Act' they will apparently pass after triggering Article 50 would restore the laws thus affected also doesn't alter the fact that by commencing the process of leaving the EU without consulting parliament the government would have overstepped the mark and gone beyond what their executive powers are supposed to permit. Had they made the referendum itself binding they could have avoided this malaise (for example the AV referendum, if you remember that farce, was binding and had it passed the appropriate legislation would have been enacted automatically without needing further parliamentary approval). They didn't of course and as everyone knows it was merely consultative, so despite the enormous political pressure to implement the result there is no legal obligation to do so. The point is that the decision of the High Court does nothing to actually stop Brexit, it merely stops the UK government from implementing it without consulting parliament first. It should also be pointed out it is somewhat unclear in the judgement if a simple vote (a 'parliamentary referendum') would suffice; a lot of legal experts I've read seem to suggest that legislation would need to be passed which of course would involve a lot of wrangling in both Houses and a probably protracted timetable. May could go for the simple vote option and press ahead with her March timetable but this might leave her open to further legal challenge. So essentially the courts have actually stepped in and protected the public from a gross breach of that precious British Parliamentary Sovereignty that was so cherished by those campaigning for a 'leave' vote. They should be pleased with such an outcome and that the courts have protected us from the undemocratic usage of the Royal Prerogative to alter and discard UK legislation and the rights of British citizens without parliamentary approval. In narrow legal terms the appeal to the Supreme Court doesn't seem to stand much of a chance. It is hard to see how the Supreme Court judges can take a different view to the High Court as the fact that triggering Article 50 does alter domestic law seems pretty clear cut; it would also create a dangerous precedent were the government permitted to use its executive powers to alter domestic law on the basis it would go back and get parliament to reinstate the discarded law at a later date. Sadly seeing how the High Court judges have been hounded for 'overruling democracy' the pressure on them to find in favour of the government will be immense. It ought to concern people that May's government thought they could get away with acting in such a manner without proper constitutional oversight merely because they thought they had the backing of public opinion. The idea that judges ought to disregard the law and take decisions based on what they think public opinion would prefer is also concerning and it ought to be considered an absolute disgrace that politicians and the press are openly trying to pressurise the courts into ignoring the law to get an outcome they prefer. I actually (and I'm pretty cynical on the whole) wouldn't have imagined years ago that we'd be in a situation in the UK where judges were branded as 'enemies of the people' on the front page of a national newspaper for merely upholding the law. Then again that's Brexit Britain for you. High time Scotland got out of this absolute madness.

According to the reports I've seen the Labour NEC have confirmed they will stand a candidate. It was the pet idea of Lisa Nandy, Clive Lewis and Jonathon Reynolds that they not stand in order to not split the 'progressive' vote. Hard to tell sometimes what is official Labour policy and what isn't these days but it would appear not standing against the Lib Dems definitely isn't. The Greens are also going to stand although they apparently want to 'cooperate' with the Lib Dems, whatever that is supposed to mean.

Don't worry I won't. I think everyone can see for themselves the embarrassing level of waffle and 'tying yourself in knots' to which you've been reduced. The will has now departed, I won't be bothering again.

There's no reason why English people living in Scotland can't be persuaded to vote for independence; the research may indicate most voted no last time around but of the English people I know (where I know how they voted) it was actually about a 50/50 split for and against. In the current political context I would expect a good number of those English people who live in Scotland to seriously consider a yes vote especially given it may be a choice between a putative 'little England' style Tory regime and Scotland as part of the EU. Certainly many of the more left-leaning/liberal English voters up here might be keener to live in a Scotland they saw as open to the world and part of the broader EU community than an apparently insular, xenophobic post-Brexit Britain. In any case Yes campaigners ought to be targeting these people (like no voters in general) and persuading them of the merits of independence. Criticising them or attempting to single them out as the 'problem' will not only do nothing to secure their votes but also put off Scots who aren't keen on ethnic nationalism. If English people want to come up here and contribute to Scotland then we should welcome them as much as anyone from anywhere else in the world. Hopefully they will come to see the merits of an independent Scotland as readily as Scots if the arguments are made clearly and convincingly. If we get another referendum I'll be doing my best to persuade the English folk I know as much as the Scots anyway.

UKIP not fielding a candidate either on the basis Goldsmith is a committed Brexiter, so he looks to have a clear run as far as the right-wing part of the electorate is concerned. About a year ago I would have expected them to try and snare him Douglas Carswell-style and double their number of MPs, but I suppose from Goldsmith's point of view UKIP are politically toxic at this moment in time.

You see the thing is it's not for me to defend absolutely everything the SNP government has done or to somehow 'disprove' your tedious rendition of 'SNPbad: The Greatest Hits', as you well know. Your original ludicrous contention was that Scotland (and it was Scotland as you initially formulated it) was too 'politically immature' to be an independent state. Now we've gone from that to it just being the SNP that were 'immature', to this insistence I disprove your tendentious view of their record in government. Essentially your initial point was vacuous nonsense so you're now scrambling around trying to change the topic. Even if any of the above was a remotely accurate characterisation of the contemporary Scottish political context (and it isn't) then it would still not prove your asinine contention that Scotland was somehow not 'mature' enough to be an independent state. Evidently if I don't say anything about the 'substantive' points you claim to have made however you'll run off, claim victory and portray yourself again as the one-eyed man in the kingdom of the blind, when really you're more the one-braincelled man in the kingdom of the reasonably intelligent. On education clearly Curriculum for Excellence has had teething problems and there have been issues with its implementation (an issue not just for the Scottish Government but the councils) but overall it has been positively assessed by the OECD. I don't imagine the OECD are only giving it credit out of fear of an overly 'aggressive' response from the SNP. Class sizes in primary one have been drastically reduced and many schools rebuilt or refurbished. More pupils are gaining Highers and they are also gaining better results. Personally I think that given the climate of austerity and the financial settlement from Westminster cutting part-time college courses in favour of full-time equivalents was the sensible course of action as well. In terms of Higher Education Scottish universities are actually doing better in terms of research output and securing research funding than anywhere else in the UK. Not to mention there are still no tuition fees and at the other end of the spectrum childcare provision has been substantially increased. Of course there are things to criticise and the suggestion that standards in numeracy and literacy have fallen in some age groups should be critically examined. I'd also say Angela Constance was somewhat out her depth as Education secretary and it is a positive she has been replaced by Swinney. The 'attainment gap' is a serious issue and ought to be addressed (indeed it is welcome that the SNP have made a commitment to do so) but to pretend it hasn't been an issue in Scotland for decades if not centuries is just disingenuous waffle; quite clearly the SNP did not create such a gap in the past nine years. It quite clearly exists down south as well and the policies Ruth Davidson would presumably advocate of tuition fees and grammar schools would no doubt exacerbate the issue. So evidently there are issues with Scottish education but it isn't the horrendous failure critics of the current administration would like to portray. Certainly it isn't such a disaster as to call into question the general 'competence' of the government or Scotland's ability to be independent. The NHS is hardly perfect either but I would contend the SNP have done a better job of maintaining resource levels and weathering financial pressure than their counterparts at Westminster. Of course boards are under financial pressure but all the boards in Scotland are currently meeting their financial targets. Patient satisfaction is higher and waiting times are lower than anywhere else in the UK. More funding would be great but given the paucity of options the Scottish government has (and will have) for raising extra revenue quite clearly whilst within the UK our options for improving funding levels are seriously restricted. And at least the Scottish (Welsh and NI) government(s) haven't picked a ludicrous fight with junior doctors; if you want to see really low morale in the NHS take a trip down to Jeremy Hunt's patch. The reorganisation of Police Scotland had cross party support. Pretty sure the police service up here is still functioning last time I checked. Clearly there have been difficulties but in general the reorganisation was a sensible move. It would be nice if the UK Treasury dropped its petty insistence on charging them VAT as well. Aside from the reorganisation of the police and fire services what real evidence of this 'centralisation' agenda is there? It's a fairly tired unionist canard especially spun by the lib/con politicians of the south and Highlands to portray the SNP as central-belt Scots who don't understand or care for the rest of Scotland. Aside from the fact there's no evidence for that being true there's also equally little evidence the unionist parties have the slightest interest in rural Scotland either. I actually do not agree with the manner in which the SNP have retained the Council Tax and would have preferred they move to a Local Income Tax or at least be further along the process of doing so. Most local government expenditure is funded by the block grant from the Scottish government, the Council Tax would have had to rise very substantially to offset the cuts in that grant. Of course anyone with half a brain can trace the genesis of these cuts back to Cameron and Osbourne's austerity agenda in Westminster, which led to the general cuts in government expenditure across the UK. You just don't want to connect the dots. The bit about focusing on 'party political agendas' and not the 'national interest' is just meaningless drivel as per and I've already dealt with that. So you see you can make reasoned criticism of the SNP government's record. Indeed at no time did I allege their record in government was perfect. Then again I doubt any government anywhere in the world has a 'perfect' record, what with there not being, last time I checked, an actual utopia out there. The record of the SNP on the other hand is clearly not one of unmitigated failure as you'd like to portray it. Indeed as has already been pointed out to you they've been reelected twice, demonstrating they possess the general confidence of the Scottish public, and are also on certain of the issues you're apparently concerned about are demonstrably doing a better job than their counterparts across the UK. Nor does their record have any real bearing on whether or not Scotland should or could be independent. There is absolutely nothing in what you've said to back up your original pathetic argument that Scotland was 'too immature' to govern itself. I can't see how you really expect to be taken seriously when you claim on the one hand, in all apparent seriousness, that the SNP can't be criticised and you wouldn't be surprised to be hauled off to the jail for your 'daring' dissent against the Scottish government whilst at the same time pretending to be 'satirical' about claiming to live under a 'democratic dictatorship'. Mind you I don't think you actually understand what satire is.

Ahem!

You on the other hand need to up your game. You edited that and I'm still not clear what this scintillating retort is actually meant to say.

Er, aye ok then. I suppose I can see why, looking at Westminster and Holyrood, you could mistake the SNP for all our politicians seeing as they're the only show in town. Naw it just doesn't make any sense full stop. Politically immature So when you're pulled up for talking sh##e it's actually satire, such wonderfully subtle satire only you can see it? You realise the only thing you'd actually be satirising is not the Scottish government but the paranoid ranting of swivel eyed Britnat loons? Or indeed are you struggling to keep up the pretence that this isn't actually just an exercise in trolling? Either way I'm done with your pish. Keep it up though, it is wonderfully satirical of the inchoate rambling delusions of a certain sector of unionism, and therefore good for a laugh. Hope that doesn't go right over your head...

Seems Hookem might have been better off fleeing to Blighty after all: The clash at the European Parliament earlier this month between UKIP MEPs Steven Woolfe and Mike Hookem has been reported to the French police. European Parliament president Martin Schulz said he had referred the "regrettable" incident after a probe. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37773159 Seems they have both been reported so both could potentially face charges although not sure how likely that is at this stage. They are both almost certainly going to be fined by the parliament itself though for 'bringing it into disrepute' and could lose about 4,000 euros each in precious expenses payments. Hookem's not taken this news well and has demanded Schulz 'step outside', sort of: In a statement released on Wednesday, Mr Hookem said he had "no problem with any fair inquiry as it will demonstrate that I did not hit Steven Woolfe." "Ever keen to stir the pot, the European Parliament president Martin Schulz and the leader of the EPP Manfred Weber have made defamatory statements in the chamber today claiming falsely that I punched Steven Woolfe. "I have responded to their disgraceful allegations by requesting that they repeat their allegations outside of a place they have parliamentary immunity. "I'm afraid all I was met with was mealy words from a long-term bully pretending to be the tough guy but refusing to leave his plush tax payer funded feather nest and parliamentary privilege. "If you have the guts, Mr President, to repeat your false allegations outside of the Hemicycle then yes, I will see you in court."

I've already indicated to you that the idea Scotland is 'politically immature' is meaningless drivel in and of itself. Even if you don't think you're comparing Scottish politics to any other nation it is entirely valid to point out that the politics of every other nation on Earth feature division and entrenched interests: i.e. using that as an argument against Scotland and only Scotland being independent is an asinine gambit. Saying Scots aren't 'mature enough' to govern an independent state also insinuates whether you appreciate it or not that those states which are independent have reached the required level of maturity and indeed also that you think the UK government is suitably mature. You don't seem able to understand the implications of your own posts. And you're not 'just saying how it is' that's your opinion. Claiming that the Scottish government hasn't reached an arbitrary level of 'maturity' you yourself have decided is required before Scotland can manage its own affairs is hardly proffering some sort of objective fact. The constant bleating that you're only offering observations not giving opinions isn't fooling anyone in any case. There's absolutely zero evidence or justification for that claim as you well know. What a lot of 'delusionist' pish. The SNP government has actually faced probably the most intensive scrutiny and criticism from the press of any Scottish government since devolution. There is plenty of criticism of it out there in civil society as well in general. You're criticising it right now and I doubt that a door in Hawick is about to be broken down by the SNP Thought Police in the wee small hours of this morning. The efforts of Britnats to portray themselves as somehow being lone brave voices daring to stand up against an ever more oppressive SNP government whilst everyone else turns a blind eye out of fear or smug anti-English fervour is just pathetic. Actually 'an arrogant, right of centre, stagnant, divisive, 'delusionist' Govt.' would actually be a not bad representation of Theresa May's administration although to be fair to them I'm pretty sure much like the Scottish government they can be criticised. Democratic Dictatorship

Of course. Nobody would argue with your right to said opinion. That one the other hand I don't believe for a minute. The idea that Britnats such as yourself or RedRob would actually support independence if the Scottish government somehow 'proved itself' is disingenuous tosh. If the Scottish parliament were running things to your satisfaction you'd undoubtedly claim it was proof of the marvellous benefits of being part of the Union and demonstrated there was no need for change. What you call 'narrow party political interests' are no doubt initiatives such as the SNP targeting another independence referendum, i.e. you might consider supporting independence when it's no longer on offer. You make the 'generous' concession that if the Scottish government were to go away and shut up about constitutional affairs and somehow (it's hardly clear how exactly) 'govern properly' you may consider rethinking those very same constitutional affairs. It's basically nonsensical cant through which by pretending to be oh so sweet and reasonable you can portray your opposition to independence as something other than British nationalism. Literally nobody is going to buy it. Funnily enough seeing as they've been reelected twice with an increased share of the vote it would appear that the Scottish electorate in general actually think the current administration is running the country 'properly' and 'competently'. And now the Scottish cringe bites. 'Political maturity'? What is that even supposed to mean? The idea that Scots are not 'mature' enough to run their own affairs is just patronising drivel, especially coupled as it is to the inference that our 'big brothers' down south do have the requisite wisdom and ability to manage things we cannot yet cope with. Constitutional affairs are serious and important political issues, so discussing them is hardly a sign of 'political immaturity'. This idea that discussing self-determination for Scotland is actually a reflection of an obsession with England is ludicrous and bizarre. As has been said above funny how it is the unionists on here who are the most keen to drag discussion of England into every conversation about Scottish independence. The actual Yes campaign was noticeable for the political maturity it showed by focusing discussion almost entirely around what the powers, opportunities and challengers of independence would mean for Scotland. The childish playground discourse of 'you're a nationalist so you hate England' is being invoked by you in vain here, again nobody's going to buy it. Your argument, such as it is, really collapses around your ears here. The idea that Scottish politics are tribal, divisive, entrenched and exclusive whilst Westminster politics are not is so pathetically laughable nobody is going to take it seriously. Even at the best of times it would be implausible to say the least but at a time when an incredibly elitist Tory government is presiding over the shambles that is Brexit with all the associated division and rancour that has caused it becomes so absurd as to be comedic. If the argument is meant to be that our politics are as bad as those of the 'English' for such vices then why exactly is that an argument for maintaining the union? As an aside I'd be interested to hear which Western democratic countries are characterised by politics without tribal division or entrenched interests? Every country has their political blocs and divisions, and there is no reason to expect Scotland to be any different under independence or the union. Even before the rise of the SNP and the national question there were deep political divisions between different parts of Scottish society; it wasn't as if pre-Salmond nobody here ever disagreed about politics. Still, amusing to see your little supposed dream of a Scotland under the union where everyone is supposedly pulling together without any division or disagreement, all somehow 'included'. I know you put a lot of effort into your trolling but do at least try and keep it consistent. Only a few weeks ago you were arguing other workers shouldn't get Saturday pay because you don't. Hardly the view of a committed Socialist like yourself surely?

No worries. I think the anger in Scotland at the time wasn't that the English settlers didn't give them a handout when they got there or refused to offer any sort of military assistance, but that they wouldn't even trade with them; i.e. when the Scots wanted to merely purchase provisions they were refused outright. That and the fact this refusal was motivated by a direct decree against assisting or trading with them from their own (and the English of course) monarch. The Scots were obviously naive as I've said before to expect that the English would be willing to accept their colonial venture on the basis that they shared a king and were therefore already in a kind of political alliance. I don't think however they expected much in the way of aid from the English, just that they wouldn't be as actively hostile to them as they turned out to be. For what its worth if I recall correctly (been a while since I was reading about this) some of the English colonial officials out there were actually minded to give some assistance to the Scots (partially on the basis they'd rather have a Scottish colony in Darien than a Spanish one) but ultimately followed their orders and refused them. Anyway it's an interesting little morsel of history but not all that relevant to Scotland in the 21st century, however you want to spin what actually happened out there.

The point is Scotland wasn't just 'any other country' but a country that was in a personal union with England. From the point of view of the East India Company themselves excluding Scots from their trade might have made sense, but seeing as Scotland shared a monarch with the English the Scots were justifiably peeved that the English government not only tolerated them doing so but itself took measures detrimental to Scotland's trading interests. The English government was headed by the same monarch as that of Scotland, hence the Scots (wrongly as it turned out) expected their concerns to be treated on a par with those of England and after having themselves been roped into various wars to support English and Dutch interests thought there would be a degree of reciprocity. There wasn't. Who said anything about the East India Company being expected to 'bail out' a competitor? The Scots were annoyed not that they didn't get a dole from the EIC but that their English counterparts were allowed to sabotage their attempts to raise capital overseas and then actively interfered in their efforts to trade up to and including seizing their ships. Perhaps the Scots were naive to think King William would support their venture at the risk of annoying the Spanish, however had he chosen to do so by ordering his other kingdoms to support them it is quite possible the Spanish wouldn't have got involved. I've already stated that the whole Darien venture was overly ambitious and flawed from the start, which was the responsibility of the Scots involved. The point is whether or not the Scots were naive the King in London was completely prepared to sacrifice their interests to what he thought more important. I know it's apparently too long for you but I have already discussed a lot of this stuff in my very first post on the topic.

The reason you are supposed to 'care' about what happened in Darien is that your fellow unionists on this very thread were trying to allege the failure of the scheme resulted in poor foolish Scotland being rescued by the generous English through the Act of Union. It has only been discussed to point out that this narrative is fundamentally flawed and that English interference and hostility to the scheme was partially the reason it failed and that the Act of Union was also partially motivated by outright English economic sanctions against Scotland. Of course the only reason the failure at Darien is dredged up by unionists is to create a narrative of Scotland forever being helpless and destitute without its supposedly wiser and richer southern neighbour, i.e. "Scotland was bust before the union and if we were independent we'd go bust again and have to beg the English for another bailout, just like Darien". Nobody is really buying all this sudden moral superiority and concern for the toiling masses of the 17th and 18th centuries that you've miraculously developed. And as I said before: It seems for some unionists the Darien Disaster is a pertinent warning from history about how much we'd be f##ked without the union...until the actual history of the period is discussed when suddenly all this talk of colonies outrages their sensibilities.

I think you're entirely missing the point, but if you want to feel superior about not approving of the colonial ventures of the 17th century feel free. Who here is blaming the English for colonial ventures we later took part in anyway? Who is trying to portray 'colonial exploitation' as a good thing? The point I was making was that the impetus for the Darien scheme in the first place was partially due to England not permitting Scots to trade with the colonies England had already established at that date. English pressure was also a key contributing factor in the failure of the Darien scheme. I was making these points to illustrate the fact that narrating the Act of Union as a 'bailout' of a Scotland impoverished by her own imperialist hubris is misleading and inaccurate. In that sense the English are partially to blame for its failure as I've outlined. It's not an exercise in nationalistic grievance mongering or blame shifting but a statement of the facts. No idea what point you're trying to make.

Jamaica in the first instance and the settlement at Port Royal in particular where the Scottish colonists were actually refused assistance. All the English colonies in the Americas were commanded not to aid the Scots or trade with them in any way.

The Darien scheme was evidently a disaster for the Scotland, but it needs to be placed in context. I realise you're no doubt just trolling but I think it important to point a few things out. From the Union of the Crowns in 1603 although Scotland was still an independent country her interests were increasingly ignored by the monarchs who sat on the throne in London, who became ever more preoccupied with the affairs of their much larger and more powerful southern kingdom. As a consequence domestic Scottish policy was neglected or completely ignored whilst Scotland was dragged into foreign affairs on the side of England by default. For example throughout the 1620s Scotland found itself at war with France (our traditional ally) and Spain as a consequence of essentially English foreign policy concerns, wars which were not by any means in Scotland's interests. Partially as a result Scottish attempts to establish a colony in Nova Scotia were frustrated due to the Anglo-French war of the 1620s; during the peace negotiations Charles I found it convenient to cede Scottish holdings in the Americas to the French as part of the final settlement. The series of wars against the Dutch in the latter half of the 17th century were also entirely detrimental to Scottish interests as they involved a breach with a nation that had been one of our major continental trading partners. They also inspired the Navigation Acts which forbade the import of goods into England (or her colonies) unless carried by English ships. Self-evidently this was detrimental to Scottish trade, but despite the English monarch being the Scottish monarch (or in the case of Cromwell Lord Protector) these measures were taken without consideration of the Scottish interest. By the period of the Darien scheme Scotland had been thoroughly ignored by its supposed monarch for the best part of a hundred years and had consequently endured a period of economic and political stagnation whilst at the same time being forced to supply resources for colonial and military ventures that benefited only the English. It had also been drawn into a series of European conflicts in which it had little clear interest and which had negatively impacted on Scottish trade with the continent. It was also shut out, essentially, from trade with English colonies and the wealth to be had from them, especially as the likes of the East India Company had no interest in allowing Scots a share in their lucrative commerce. All the while we were being ruled by the same monarch and hence had little avenue to complain about such neglect, let alone seek redress. Now at this point it is necessary to say that there were a number of reasons why the Darien scheme failed, and it was indeed perhaps an ill-advised venture from the very beginning that had little chance of success. In that sense it is most certainly a Scottish failure. It is important to understand however that the intransigence, disregard and hostility of the English government and merchant class towards Scottish interests was the key stimulus that provoked their Scottish counterparts into launching such an ambitious scheme to begin with. The implosion of the scheme need not have been anything like as ruinous for the Scottish economy either had it not been for English interference; originally the Scots managed to secure investment not only from amongst themselves but also a number of Dutch and English backers. It was pressure from the English East India Company that forced these investors to withdraw and therefore compelled the Scots to raise the necessary capital entirely within Scotland. Indeed the East India Company had thought that by getting the English and Dutch backers to jump ship the scheme would collapse entirely. The isthmus of Panama was also in what we would nowadays call the Spanish 'sphere of influence', and William II (i.e. King Billy) was more concerned with maintaining good relations with Spain (for English interests) than backing the ambitions of his Scottish subjects and was also instrumental in sabotaging this attempt to get foreign capital. Consequently as a direct result of English hostility Scotland had to furnish the necessary investment alone. The colony created at Darien suffered from poor leadership, difficult climactic conditions and an poorly thought out choice of trade goods in which the natives were not overly interested. As I've said it was not a well planned or executed venture and much of the blame for that lies in Scotland. It should be pointed out however the colony's prospects would have been much less bleak had nearby English colonies not been specifically barred from rendering any assistance to or even trading with the Scots by the English authorities. William even ordered the Dutch not to conduct any trade with the Scots at Darien. That is to say it was the explicit policy of the Scottish monarch, who incidentally ruled England as well, to do everything in his power short of attacking the place to see the colony at Darien fail. Even settlers attempting to return to Scotland from Darien were refused assistance in Jamaica by the English authorities on their way back. When the Spanish did eventually attack the failing Scottish colony the English did nothing whatsoever to aid them. Even after the Darien debacle the Company of Scotland (our equivalent of the East India Company) limped on. Unfortunately for us the actual East India Company and the English in general were still totally unprepared to give up their monopoly (in British terms) on colonial trade, and as late as 1704 they were actually seizing the ships of their Scottish equivalent for daring to try and trade overseas. In this context antipathy towards the English was actually incredibly high in Scotland in 1707 and the proposed Act of Union massively unpopular. In this context you can see how Scotland was not 'bailed out' by the English for the Darien scheme; indeed the English were instrumental both in creating the conditions under which the Scots felt it necessary to try such a gamble and also in ensuring the scheme then failed. The Acts of Union did not specifically 'bail out' or compensate Scotland for the scheme (Scotland was not in that sense bankrupt anyway as the Darien scheme was a private venture financed by subscription) but provided capital to offset our liability for the English national debt. Fascinating fact: at the time of the Union England had a national debt whereas Scotland was actually debt free. In actual fact it was the monies directly doled to Scots nobles who had lost money in the scheme which might be described as a 'bail out', or in more accurate terms a bribe. To further place these events in context in 1705 the English passed the Alien Act because Scotland hinted it may pick a different monarch than the English once the childless Queen Anne died (and indeed we only did that after the English had already essentially chosen the Hanoverians with the Act of Settlement in 1701). The Alien Act was an intensely hostile attempt to bully Scotland into either explicitly choosing the Hanoverians or beginning talks about an Act of Union, as indeed we later did. Under the Alien Act Scots were to be treated in England as foreigners (disregarding any privileges we'd enjoyed since the Union of the Crowns) and most importantly it placed an embargo on Scotland trading with England or her colonies, thus threatening to cripple Scottish trade. Under such circumstances Scotland was essentially cajoled into beginning discussions on a union with England by overt English hostility. The unionist narrative therefore that Scotland was 'bankrupt' through her own incompetence and in 1707 the English benevolently 'bailed out' the benighted Scots is an absolute misunderstanding or distortion of actual history. Yes Darien was a disaster and Scots were responsible for most of the decisions which led to that disaster, but they were not primarily responsible for the context in which this disaster unfolded. Scotland was economically disadvantaged by a government that placed English interests first and deliberately sabotaged Scottish attempts to secure a colony of her own. Scotland was then essentially placed under economic sanctions for daring to consider appointing a different ruler than that in England. Scotland was not bailed out as she had no national debt, but certain Scottish nobles did somehow manage to ameliorate their own financial hardships during the negotiations that secured the Act of Union. Scotland in the late 17th and early 18th century was ruled by an elite in London that cared nothing for her economic or political problems and disrupted her trading relations with her continental partners without concern for Scottish interests. Scottish interests were deliberately sacrificed by the government in London at the altar of that which they considered more important, i.e. English concerns. When Scotland complained and suggested she might consider going her own way in the future she was threatened with economic devastation on the one hand whilst on the other certain Scots were promised rich rewards. Plus ca change eh?