Brexit slowly becoming a Farce.

[Baxter Parp]

Just now, git-intae-thum said:

We...as in Scots....played our part in empire alright. 

Never denied that.  However, I deny that our part was exceptional or that our troops were in some way exceptional.

[welshbairn]

1 hour ago, pandarilla said:

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that statement.

The martial tradition is a part of Scottish history, and denying this is never a good look. Scots were up to their necks in imperial shenanigans.

With a speciality in slavery. This Tartan Army thing about how we've always been the good guys, it's the English who made us do it pish gets on my tits.

Quote

 In 1796, Scots owned nearly 30 per cent of the estates in Jamaica and by 1817, a staggering 32 per cent of the slaves.

At any given time there were only about 70 or 80 slaves in Scotland but the country reaped the fruits of their labour in the colonies in the sugar, cotton and tobacco plantations.

Many Scots masters were considered among the most brutal, with life expectancy on their plantations averaging a mere four years.

https://www.blackhistorymonth.org.uk/article/section/history-of-slavery/scotland-and-slavery/

[Baxter Parp]

 

Quote

 In 1796, Scots owned nearly 30 per cent of the estates in Jamaica and by 1817, a staggering 32 per cent of the slaves.

At any given time there were only about 70 or 80 slaves in Scotland 

It was illegal to own a slave in Scotland by 1788.   In 1796, there weren't 70 or 80, there were none.

Cut and pasted from the Daily Record, you should be ashamed.

[welshbairn]

"At any given time.." Daily Record?

[The_Kincardine]

29 minutes ago, git-intae-thum said:

 

Those few Scots who made money through empire, kept it to themselves.....and in many cases their descendants retain it to this day.

We all know the sort. They live in London, but retain the family "home" in Scotland. 2nd son did a subalternship in a Highland regiment. Love a good ceilidh. Go to Burns suppers, but loathe the Scottish accent. Collectively this shower still "own" about 3/4 of Scotland.

This is tragic bollocks.  The Weege is a city up to its neck in Empire and in retained wealth.  A city whose industry developed first on cotton from Scots-owned and slave-laboured cotton plantations whose raw material was sent back to Glasgow for processing to tobacco from Scots-owned and slave-laboured tobacco plantations in the Indies.  Not forgetting sugar plantations - owned and operated by Scots with slave labour.  

Once it was cheaper to refine tobacco and cotton elsewhere Glasgow moved on to metal refining and metal bashing to provide and provided many hundreds of thousands with employment from shipyards on the Clyde to steel foundries in Motherwell - all oiling the Scottish economy and all enriching Scottish employees, managers and factory owners.

You said, "Much of the nation became an isolated backwater and people became our greatest export." and this is a damnable lie.  It was the Union and Empire allied with the Protestant Reformation which saved Scotland from being a provincial backwater.  Yes, we exported people but, more importantly, we exported manufactured goods and, more significantly, our post-Reformation learning ranging from the educated Scots who ran the East India Company and the Hudson's Bay Company to writing the blueprint of the modern world's economy.

 

[Baxter Parp]

3 hours ago, welshbairn said:

"At any given time.." Daily Record?

At any given time before 1788 that is.

[Baxter Parp]

3 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

  It was the Union and Empire allied with the Protestant Reformation which saved Scotland from being a provincial backwater. 

Please feel free to substantiate your utter bullshit. Again.

[sophia]

5 hours ago, git-intae-thum said:

Whilst it is ridiculous to claim empire was a Scottish project, there is no doubt Scots played a significant part throughout the period.

No point denying that.

Of what benefit the whole thing was to Scotland and the Scots is more open to debate.

Absolutely some became seriously wealthy.  However they had to leave Scotland and conform to a very anglicized view of the world to attain this wealth.

Those few Scots who made money through empire, kept it to themselves.....and in many cases their descendants retain it to this day.

We all know the sort. They live in London, but retain the family "home" in Scotland. 2nd son did a subalternship in a Highland regiment. Love a good ceilidh. Go to Burns suppers, but loathe the Scottish accent. Collectively this shower still "own" about 3/4 of Scotland.

Crucially, Scotland, as in the country we live in, did not, by and large share in this wealth. Much of the nation became an isolated backwater and people became our greatest export. 

Scotland's population in comparison to that of England dropped dramatically all through the imperial period. It has never recovered.

We...as in Scots....played our part in empire alright. We....did not really gain.

This is a very good point which anybody that can see beyond the Glasgow conurbation can't deny.

Land ownership remains a critical issue and significant wealth was gained and is retained to this day.

[O'Kelly Isley III]

I really shouldn't humour you, but I'm a Russian bot, so here goes. Mind you, where to start? You need to mix with more varied  people who might have some independent thought.
1. Well, actually ratios are of account. Just wait till a wee country wants to veto something that France and Germany want to push through. Or just remember the 2nd referendums foisted upon Ireland and Denmark. And ratios certainly do count at Westminster.
2. Certainly Britain does and France doesn't stick close to the US. But the new eastern states are very pro US for obvious reasons, and to some degree so are the Italians and Spaniards. There is obviously a strong strain of anti-Americanism in British society, particularly on the left.
3. Constantly on a war footing? Again - are you not considering the eastern countries properly European? And what was the last military action - Libya. UK and who? - the non arse-kissing French.
4. Monarchies - Most are not. Some are - Spain, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, They are all symbolic Heads of State. wtf is your point?
5. Impoverishment. You think the life of somebody living on benefits in a housing scheme in Paris or Dublin or Berlin is so very different to their equivalent in a UK city?
6. Europeans do learn from their past? Well, maybe, maybe not. A bit early to tell. AfD are polling* 27.5% in Germany. Is this ringing any bells in your wee fantasy world of goodies v baddies? Grow up, open your eyes and think for yourself.
* Sorry - just Brandenburg and Saxony. Nationally more like 15%. Still a scary number for a truly far right party.

Just for the record I actually posted a reply to this last night but for reasons unknown it has failed to appear. It was quite lengthy and I can't be arsed trying to repeat it.

However, I'm surprised and disappointed to see that this thread has subsequently veered into British and Scottish military history, courtesy of The Kincardine.

What a metaphor for the UK in 2019 and Brexit in particular; forever looking backwards instead of forwards, and a continuing vainglorious obsession with militarism, largely by folk who've never been involved in anything more dangerous than an Asda checkout queue.

[Baxter Parp]

This is completely normal.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

Just for the record I actually posted a reply to this last night but for reasons unknown it has failed to appear. It was quite lengthy and I can't be arsed trying to repeat it.

However, I'm surprised and disappointed to see that this thread has subsequently veered into British and Scottish military history, courtesy of The Kincardine.

What a metaphor for the UK in 2019 and Brexit in particular; forever looking backwards instead of forwards, and a continuing vainglorious obsession with militarism, largely by folk who've never been involved in anything more dangerous than an Asda checkout queue.

A heady mix of Kincardine being too pished to understand your previous post and utterly desperate for attention

[pandarilla]

A heady mix of Kincardine being too pished to understand your previous post and utterly desperate for attention

@Kincardine was spot on with his points, and throwing the usual 'too pished' line is weak as f**k.

There are some folk that like to think that Scotland had the empire forced on them, and that's simply not the case. We were involved at all levels and a lot of money was made (and yes, much of it was spent on our cities, Glasgow being the best but certainly not only example).

Also the sense in which those Scots who were profiting are somehow less Scottish makes me feel uneasy. We can't just choose the history that suits our narrative.

Now there's another good point that was lost in the mix about capitalism and empire - and how poor fuckers at the bottom certainly didn't benefit from the glories of the empire. But that point doesn't just apply to Scots, it applies to the rest of the British isles.

Apologies for continuing to derail the thread.

[Baxter Parp]

@Kincardine was spot on with his points, and throwing the usual 'too pished' line is weak as f**k.

There are some folk that like to think that Scotland had the empire forced on them, and that's simply not the case. We were involved at all levels and a lot of money was made (and yes, much of it was spent on our cities, Glasgow being the best but certainly not only example).

Also the sense in which those Scots who were profiting are somehow less Scottish makes me feel uneasy. We can't just choose the history that suits our narrative.

Now there's another good point that was lost in the mix about capitalism and empire - and how poor fuckers at the bottom certainly didn't benefit from the glories of the empire. But that point doesn't just apply to Scots, it applies to the rest of the British isles.

Apologies for continuing to derail the thread.

Please do substantiate his pish because he can't.

[Detournement]

10 hours ago, beefybake said:

Must admit, I thought Francis Coppolla had retired to his winery in California, or wherever.

Anyway, there's nothing new in what this FC is saying.   The travails of the Metro  Bank have been widely reported for weeks,

and months, in the business pages of the mainstream news media.   As for Royal Mail, the 'new chief being sought' is simply

the vacant post for another director. 

What FC is saying is that shorting companies is what shorters do. It's their everyday business.   Basically he's putting up a snow job.

And doesn't offer any evidence that Rachel Johnson is talking out of her arse.

She has looked at all the short positions on UK listed companies and determined that none of them are out of the ordinary. 

For Rachel Johnson's claim to be true she (or someone with a clue) would have to be able to point out the short positions that have been taken in companies in expectation of no deal.

[Detournement]

7 hours ago, Baxter Parp said:

 

It was illegal to own a slave in Scotland by 1788.   In 1796, there weren't 70 or 80, there were none.

Cut and pasted from the Daily Record, you should be ashamed.

There were a lot of black 'servants' though who have been airbrushed from history. 

[Benjamin_Nevis]

@Kincardine was spot on with his points, and throwing the usual 'too pished' line is weak as f**k.

There are some folk that like to think that Scotland had the empire forced on them, and that's simply not the case. We were involved at all levels and a lot of money was made (and yes, much of it was spent on our cities, Glasgow being the best but certainly not only example).

Also the sense in which those Scots who were profiting are somehow less Scottish makes me feel uneasy. We can't just choose the history that suits our narrative.

Now there's another good point that was lost in the mix about capitalism and empire - and how poor fuckers at the bottom certainly didn't benefit from the glories of the empire. But that point doesn't just apply to Scots, it applies to the rest of the British isles.

Apologies for continuing to derail the thread.

*sigh*

In your charge to concern-troll you also failed to understand that I'm ripping the pish out of Kincy for both his desperation for attention and his total failure to read O'Kelly's post properly.

Sheesh.

[Fullerene]

11 hours ago, Pet Jeden said:

They are. And it will be inconvenient for them. But it is currently more important that the punishment beating is seen and noticed by the other populations. And let's see if there is any pressure put on RoI to be flexible over the next month.

The border in Ireland will become a border between the EU and the UK. It may be located in Ireland but if Ireland is to remain an integral part of the bloc then it is effectively a border for all of them.

[renton]

1 hour ago, pandarilla said:

@Kincardine was spot on with his points, and throwing the usual 'too pished' line is weak as f**k.

There are some folk that like to think that Scotland had the empire forced on them, and that's simply not the case. We were involved at all levels and a lot of money was made (and yes, much of it was spent on our cities, Glasgow being the best but certainly not only example).

Also the sense in which those Scots who were profiting are somehow less Scottish makes me feel uneasy. We can't just choose the history that suits our narrative.

Now there's another good point that was lost in the mix about capitalism and empire - and how poor fuckers at the bottom certainly didn't benefit from the glories of the empire. But that point doesn't just apply to Scots, it applies to the rest of the British isles.

Apologies for continuing to derail the thread.

Well, no he wasn't.

For all  the eulogising of Highlanders in Red Coats that Kinkcardine does, it's worth mentioning that something like a third of the Napoleanic British Army and a quarter of the Navy were Irish Catholic, at a time when they'd just had a rebellion put down in that nation. Ireland I don't think was particularly invested in the British Empire, given the oppressive laws against their religion, the garrisoning of their country, the fact that they got the hell out of dodge as soon as they could, etc.  Yet, turn out they did - which is what you do when your poor, starving and have no where else to go - same as a number of Scots. Even in the Shires of England it was not love of Empire that drove men to enlistment - I saw an old document once where out of 100 men asked, in the non conscript, volunteer British Army of 1811 they found three men who signed up for 'patriotic reasons'. The vast majority were trying to escape poverty or in the army as an alternative to being hanged. Even amongst the gentry who formed the officer corps, it was typically the younger sons, the ones who would not inherit money who signed on for that and for the dangerous Clerk jobs in the EIC.

Context here is key when discussing a pre-mass democratic, limited franchise society and the choices that many people within that society lacked. 

As for the utility of Empire to the building of Scottish cities, well certainly Glasgow was built on it's trade with the Americas. Indeed, it was the threat of isolation from those markets in 1707 that probably forced the hand of many Scottish noblemen. The irony in that of course being that 70 years later, the British would lose their trade monopoly with America anyway thanks to the War of Independence. Had Scotland held on, it would've had that trade regardless, Glasgow would've grown anyway. For cities like Dundee? Imperial traffic largely replaced what had gone before, yet previous trade with Scandinavia, the Baltics and the Dutch (you can still see the odd influences here and there, where I grew up the old houses down near the harbour all have distinctive Dutch gables) would've persisted and grown through the industrial era. It would've been different, certainly, maybe not as big or as fast in terms of growth - but it's a fallacy to divine that without the Empire we'd have been fucked. 

That's not to say that many Scots did not make it rich out of the Empire, but those same people would've been making it rich somehow, somewhere. The argument is not about individuals but about the nation. Some Scots may have made it big out of Empire, but Scotland itself did not.

[Jacksgranda]

10 hours ago, Baxter Parp said:

It seems you have not the first clue as to the size and extent of the British Empire.  For an arch-unionist that seems remiss. For your information it was not four random incidents in time - "it covered 35,500,000 km² (13,700,000 sq mi),^[3] 24% of the Earth's total land area" and was started by the English in the 1500s, long before the Union.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire

They were just more successful at it than we were. It really took off after the Act of Union, though.

[DA Baracus]

The Empire was built on murder, theft, slavery, rape and genocide.

A horrendous chapter in the history of the world. 

It should be looked back on with the utmost shame and anyone talking of it as they were some sort of glory days that should be aspired to needs an absolute hiding.