scotland today?

[albannach]

any fellow scots out there and how do you see scotland , politically and socially at the moment??
Do we have a future on our own or within the u.k?
any views in general about anything in scotland from , say the gaidhlig language, rangers and celtic to whatever you want .
Love to hear??

[LA]

This scottish bloke annoyed me yesterday.

On the news it stated that money for Scottish SPCA was being spent in England to save pets in England.
This scottish bloke was angry and started talking in his scottish accent "Scottish money spent in Scotland not England"...

Did it not occur to him that billions of English money is spent in Scotland to keep the alive?

[albannach]

hello again l.a
ha ha ha are we really going to get into the " its our oil, no its our money that keeps you going" debate. This argument has existed siince we joined together , who benefits most etc but remember the common scots and english had no say in union.we both take out and put in and ultimately benefit. anyway , to turn previous arguments in other forums on their head, and in light of your point , do the british really exist??
are you english , british , european or what?
p.s
is it because he is scottish, or what he said or a bit of both that upset you ?

[LA]

hello again l.a
ha ha ha are we really going to get into the " its our oil, no its our money that keeps you going" debate. This argument has existed siince we joined together , who benefits most etc but remember the common scots and english had no say in union.we both take out and put in and ultimately benefit. anyway , to turn previous arguments in other forums on their head, and in light of your point , do the british really exist??
are you english , british , european or what?
p.s
is it because he is scottish, or what he said or a bit of both that upset you ?

When the Union was created there was no real benefit to England. Scotland received financial support enough to fund the country.

I am English.

It is because the man was Scottish and what he said. If he said that and he was not Scottish, It would not have annoyed me as much.

[albannach]

the union of the crowns was when england invited the scottish king to become their king , and he revived the old celtic name britain as a sop to celtic sensibilities. Despite his best attempts , the english parliament rejected any political union.100 years later the scottish parliament is bribed and threatened into union , as scotland recovered from centuries of warfare with england and became a trading rival. thus we have the status quo today.As mark twain once said , history is written with the ink of prejudice and you could argue all day about the rights and wrongs.there is good and bad people in scotland as in england , together we have achieved some remarkable things and we have both benefitted.Scottish people are not any better or worse than english , having been born and bred in glasgow and having lived in england now for 15 years i think i can say this first hand.
if you are english then you cannot be british and goes back to what i asked , do the british really exist??
If you are concerned about financing scotland then you must be happy the nationals are in up there?!

[LA]

the union of the crowns was when england invited the scottish king to become their king , and he revived the old celtic name britain as a sop to celtic sensibilities. Despite his best attempts , the english parliament rejected any political union.100 years later the scottish parliament is bribed and threatened into union , as scotland recovered from centuries of warfare with england and became a trading rival. thus we have the status quo today.As mark twain once said , history is written with the ink of prejudice and you could argue all day about the rights and wrongs.there is good and bad people in scotland as in england , together we have achieved some remarkable things and we have both benefitted.Scottish people are not any better or worse than english , having been born and bred in glasgow and having lived in england now for 15 years i think i can say this first hand.
if you are english then you cannot be british and goes back to what i asked , do the british really exist??
If you are concerned about financing scotland then you must be happy the nationals are in up there?!

It is not the problem of financing Scotland, As an imperialist you need to fianance your "colonies". What annoys me is the fact that Scotland has anger towards England, when without them they would have gone bankrupt. They cannot survive without England.

England on the other hand would be richer if Scotland didn't recieve money...

I would love to teach the Scottish a lesson. By this I would close there parliament for a year, and prevent them voting on legislation for England only but still annoy English MP's to vote in Scottish only matters. I would also like to cancel the union and let Scotland suffer without English money.

Of course that will never happen nor would I ever make it happen. There are some things you just don't do

[albannach]

is scotland an english colony?If we want to be silly then i would say we took over england and today we run england but is that not petty ? What about english anger to scotland? strange that youmoan about so called keeping scotland alive financially and yet are desperate to keep the union.Why did the english parliament want political union all those years ago if it was going to cost money with no benefit to england?
sorry you don`t like scottish people , i grew out of that years ago when i realised a c**t is a c**t no matter where you come from , my wife and kids are english.
I can understand the annoyance of the labour created west lothian question , and if the union does break up it will be because of the current political set up in the u.k , and of course labour and conservative.If i were english i would not be happy about the current set up , the english are fast dissappearing as a race of people with no one to champion your cause.

[LA]

is scotland an english colony?If we want to be silly then i would say we took over england and today we run england but is that not petty ? What about english anger to scotland? strange that youmoan about so called keeping scotland alive financially and yet are desperate to keep the union.Why did the english parliament want political union all those years ago if it was going to cost money with no benefit to england?
sorry you don`t like scottish people , i grew out of that years ago when i realised a c**t is a c**t no matter where you come from , my wife and kids are english.
I an understand the annoyance of the labour created west lothian question , and if the union does break up it will be because of the current political set up in the u.k , and of course labour and conservative.If i were english i would not be happy about the current set up , the english are fast dissappearing as a race of people with no one to champion your cause.

Firstly, I put "colony" in commas because I was not sure what to class Scotland as. Partner doesn't seem to fit.

Secondly, I do not dislike Scottish people. Only those who hate the English because their reasons are either non existant or ridiculous.

Thirdly, The first attempt at a union was by King james. The Scottish Monarch. His intention was to unite his two realms so that he would not be "guilty of bigamy".

So, when you say English wanted the union, it was actually the Scottish...

The west lothan question, Scotlands huge presence in Parliament cause my annoyance. By proportion England needs another MP's.

[albannach]

point 1 ; try unequal partner
2 ; glad to hear you do not hate someone because of their nationality
3 the end to scottish independance began when the stuart monarch james VI was invited to succeed elizabeth I of england.He accepted the union of crowns in 1603 and became a keen promoter of POLITICAL UNION. A proposal to unite the parliaments was , surprisingly , rejected by england in 1607 as not being financially advantageous to england. By the end of the 17th century , scotland was seen as a trading rival and it now became politic for england to exert some control.The political union was in 1707.
"if evera nation gained by being conquered it was here" exclaimed daniel defoe with disarming candour.He was the leading english agent in bringing about the union and was well aware of the reality of englands political coup.Defoe had managed to overturn a scottish majority against union within a few years by the dispersal of monetary bribes and offers of titles and positions.In 1714 , the scots realising they had been duped , proposed the first self government bill in westminister.It was dismissed by the lord treasurer who demanded " have we not bought the scots and the right to tax them?" .There was rioting on the streets of glasgow and edinburgh. The average scot and english had no say in the matter.

[LA]

point 1 ; try unequal partner
2 ; glad to hear you do not hate someone because of their nationality
3 the end to scottish independance began when the stuart monarch james VI was invited to succeed elizabeth I of england.He accepted the union of crowns in 1603 and became a keen promoter of POLITICAL UNION. A proposal to unite the parliaments was , surprisingly , rejected by england in 1607 as not being financially advantageous to england. By the end of the 17th century , scotland was seen as a trading rival and it now became politic for england to exert some control.The political union was in 1707.
"if evera nation gained by being conquered it was here" exclaimed daniel defoe with disarming candour.He was the leading english agent in bringing about the union and was well aware of the reality of englands political coup.Defoe had managed to overturn a scottish majority against union within a few years by the dispersal of monetary bribes and offers of titles and positions.In 1714 , the scots realising they had been duped , proposed the first self government bill in westminister.It was dismissed by the lord treasurer who demanded " have we not bought the scots and the right to tax them?" .There was rioting on the streets of glasgow and edinburgh. The average scot and english had no say in the matter.

Trading Rival that would have gone bankrupt without us?


If I were in charge I would have still made the Union? The reason is because Scotland needs finance otherwise it would have become bankrupt.

What benefit would the English get? I would have made it so Scotland was owned by England and thus the oil Scotland has is surrendered to England as well as the land.

Who says you need war to be an imperialist?

[albannach]

Trading Rival that would have gone bankrupt without us?


If I were in charge I would have still made the Union? The reason is because Scotland needs finance otherwise it would have become bankrupt.

What benefit would the English get? I would have made it so Scotland was owned by England and thus the oil Scotland has is surrendered to England as well as the land.

Who says you need war to be an imperialist?

you cannot have it both ways , don`t moan about money if you want the union.Where is your proof on scotlands finances and that it would go bankrupt without england- kidding yourself on i think.You will have to ask your ancestors why they were desperate to join with scotland. The empire is dead my friend and england is no more , you are just the north west outpost of the euro empire and we all must bow to our masters in brussells. ( glad you acknowledge its scotlands oil -dont worry , we will share it with you )

[LA]

you cannot have it both ways , don`t moan about money if you want the union.Where is your proof on scotlands finances and that it would go bankrupt without england-

Documentary called "50 things you need to know about British history" was the first time I heard about it.

You will have to ask your ancestors why they were desperate to join with scotland.

By desperate you mean the king chose...

The empire is dead my friend and england is no more , you are just the north west outpost of the euro empire and we all must bow to our masters in brussells. ( glad you acknowledge its scotlands oil -dont worry , we will share it with you )

Under the acts of Union it is British oil

[albannach]

Documentary called "50 things you need to know about British history" was the first time I heard about it.



By desperate you mean the king chose...



Under the acts of Union it is British oil

so you believe everything you hear on t.v , you refuse to accept england instigated and sealed the political union in 1707 and its british oil till it runs out then bye bye scotland.We all believe what we want to believe.
I suppose you still believe england is anglo saxon then??

[LA]

so you believe everything you hear on t.v , you refuse to accept england instigated and sealed the political union in 1707 and its british oil till it runs out then bye bye scotland.We all believe what we want to believe.
I suppose you still believe england is anglo saxon then??

No, I was wondering about the acts of union. My MP was the one who informed me that the oil is British not Scottish.

I know it was the Scottish King who tried the Union.

I do not believe when the Oil runs out the union will end.

I rarely watch Tv. Dont make assumptions.

[albannach]

you said when the union was created , check back on your posts , there was no benefit to england. I then said we did not create the union , the english parliament did in 1707 as stated. not the union of the crowns , james power was limited , the important one was the union of parliament. you expect me to believe there was no real benefit to england , pleasedon`t insult my intelligence. why did they go to the trouble to bribe and threaten if there was no benefit?? James tried but failed 100 years earlier.of course it is british oil while we are in union , i think you are clutching at straws.
did you hear the documentary on the radio? I read a book that said the normans invaded and conquered scotland. another one said they were invited in . dont believe all you hear , in one book the glass is half full , in another it is half empty depending on the prejudice of the writer

[LA]

you said when the union was created , check back on your posts , there was no benefit to england. I then said we did not create the union , the english parliament did in 1707 as stated. not the union of the crowns , james power was limited , the important one was the union of parliament. you expect me to believe there was no real benefit to england , pleasedon`t insult my intelligence. why did they go to the trouble to bribe and threaten if there was no benefit?? James tried but failed 100 years earlier.of course it is british oil while we are in union , i think you are clutching at straws.

It is amusing, you expect me to believe the Scottish were bribed? Scenes NO HISTORIAN is actually sure as to why there was a union.

What they do know however is that Scotland was on the verge of bankruptcy and England bailed them out.


Scotland was on the verge of bankruptcy, they had financed a massive trading empire to rival England's East India Trading Company. However, due to poor supplies and illness it had to be abandoned costing some £400,000, this was equal to half of Scotlands available capital.

The English offered them a chest worth of gold if they would unite with England, along with the oppurtunity to trade in the vast English Empire. Thereby saving Scotland from bankrupacy.

Taken from the Guardian:

Dr Karin Bowie, a historian at Glasgow University, argues that Scots public opinion was more evenly split than the riots suggested. A sizeable minority were neutral, while Presbyterians backed the union after the English agreed to protect the independence of the Protestant Church of Scotland under the constitution.

[albannach]

your basic argument is that scotland should be beholden to england for feeding and clothing us for 400 years with no benefit to england after all that cost in billions
The black slaves must have been thankfull for the same generosity , feeding and clothing them for no benefit to the slave master.
as an englishman you must be very generous , any chance of a sub??
what a pathetic argument , talkabout rose tinted glasses. instead of liberal authoritarian , how about little anglelander??
i suppose the cornish must be thankfull when england marched in and slaughtered them when they could not read the english bible as they mainly spoke cornish.
the irish too must be thankfull for the conquest of ireland to no benefit to england of course. Likewise the welsh , all to no benefit to england.
just think how much better off the americans would be if they had not fought against england and secured independance , look how bad they have done without england

[LA]

your basic argument is that scotland should be beholden to england for feeding and clothing us for 400 years with no benefit to england after all that cost in billions
The black slaves must have been thankfull for the same generosity , feeding and clothing them for no benefit to the slave master.
as an englishman you must be very generous , any chance of a sub??
what a pathetic argument , talkabout rose tinted glasses. instead of liberal authoritarian , how about little anglelander??

Pathetic argument?

I too find facts pathetic... Also, the Guardian Newspaper is also pathetic.
I will write them a letter saying a person with no credibility thinks there articles are pathetic.

For some reason I think they will ignore you as I will.

We aren't talking about black slaves, but some black slaves were treated exceptionally well, most though were not treated well - Still treated better than the poor people of Industrial Britain.

Union is 300 years not 400.
I didn't say beholden or anything of the sort. I merely find it annoying that the Scottish hate the English even though it is there taxes that keep Scotland afloat. Then again some of my anger rests with Labour.

The reason I am called a Liberal Authoritarian is because I believe in quite Liberal Economic Policy but my Social policies are quite Authoritarian.

[albannach]

the union of crowns was 400 years if we want to clutch at straws. as stated i dont hate the english so dont lump all the scottish together. you seem to want to tar us all in the same manner , had a bad experience with a scottish person have we??
why doesn`t england get rid of scotland if it is a financial liability , especially in these troubled times . your arguments do not add up and i think you read what you want to believe?!!
havent got over the end of the empire have we??
the french do not like the english either and vice versa , is there anyone who does like the english outwith me??
seriously if you think england is bailing out scotland for no return then england deserves all it gets cause i certainly do not believe it. there is good and bad in all nations and i think you have a big chip on your little englander shoulder.
we have both benefitted and nothing will change my mind

[LA]

the union of crowns was 400 years if we want to clutch at straws. as stated i dont hate the english so dont lump all the scottish together. you seem to want to tar us all in the same manner , had a bad experience with a scottish person have we??
why doesn`t england get rid of scotland if it is a financial liability , especially in these troubled times . your arguments do not add up and i think you read what you want to believe?!!

If I am not mistaken my arguments are:

• Scotland would have been financially bankrupt otherwise
• Everything else is speculation
• Scotland failed at their trading company to rival Englands East India Trading Company
• The riots in Scotland weren't as representative as we thought

Please correct me if what I have posted doesn't fit into the above category

havent got over the end of the empire have we??

All empires crumble. Its a shame.

seriously if you think england is bailing out scotland for no return then england deserves all it gets cause i certainly do not believe it. there is good and bad in all nations and i think you have a big chip on your little englander shoulder.

If there are returns please tell me. I have already acknowledged the oil.
If there are any more benefits please post them here, preferably with a source.

we have both benefitted and nothing will change my mind

We did both benefit.

England got some oil.
Scotland gets billions upon billions, got to trade in Englands empire, got a bail out.

The statement I am making is Scotland gets a much better deal out of it than England.

[albannach]

you are moving the goal posts to suit and my basic argument is do not moan about bankrolling the union as we did not ask to unify with england , the english parliament did this. The king may have tried 100 years earlier but FAILED , so NO, england wanted and achieved the union but you moan you dont want to spend british taxes on british subjects which i am, being scottish and british. as i said british oil then it changes to england bankrolling unwilling partners , what about britain bankrolling britain????
I want my cake and to eat it springs to mind.

[LA]

you are moving the goal posts to suit and my basic argument is do not moan about bankrolling the union as we did not ask to unify with england , the english parliament did this. The king may have tried 100 years earlier but FAILED , so NO, england wanted and achieved the union but you moan you dont want to spend british taxes on british subjects which i am, being scottish and british. as i said british oil then it changes to england bankrolling unwilling partners , what about britain bankrolling britain????
I want my cake and to eat it springs to mind.

Yes. Hhahahaha I knew you would do it.

"We did not ask to unify with England"

No, but you want our money?

No, I want English money to be spent in England. Scottish money in Scotland. Obviously Scotland would go bankrupt, but hey that is the price of equality?

When you have a cake, the general idea is to eat it. You dont generally buy a cake not to eat it.

[albannach]

Yes. Hhahahaha I knew you would do it.

"We did not ask to unify with England"

No, but you want our money?

No, I want English money to be spent in England. Scottish money in Scotland. Obviously Scotland would go bankrupt, but hey that is the price of equality?

When you have a cake, the general idea is to eat it. You dont generally buy a cake not to eat it.

so you want the union to end and we go our separate ways what a shame.obviously scotland would go bankrupt , what the way ireland did you mean??You are a dreamer
what about wales and n.ireland and cornwall , should these beggars get the boot too??
we did not ask to unify and dont want your money but if you want britian you all have to put in dont you agree??so it is not just englands money it is the british peoples money .

[LA]

so you want the union to end and we go our separate ways what a shame.obviously scotland would go bankrupt , what the way ireland did you mean??You are a dreamer
what about wales and n.ireland and cornwall , should these beggars get the boot too??
we did not ask to unify and dont want your money but if you want britian you all have to put in dont you agree??so it is not just englands money it is the british peoples money .

The British peoples money, almost all of which is paid by England.
Just so you know, England owns Wales.

Cornwall...Isnt Cornwall the part of England that belongs to England?

[albannach]

The British peoples money, almost all of which is paid by England.
Just so you know, England owns Wales.

Cornwall...Isnt Cornwall the part of England that belongs to England?

you are good on your historyaren`t you . cornwall - kernowwealhas - the foreigners of kern or the west welsh. i was in padstow last summer and read a banner that said " last night i had a nightmare - i dreamt i was an englishman " read up on cornwalls history?!
england owns wales does it? the way the danes and the norman french conquered and owned angleland??
poor old england conquered by the danes and the french and now you have no more empire you are reduced to squabbling with the celts - you sound like my 4 year old daughter ", its my money !!"

[albannach]

dear little anglelander love to stay up and squabble but must dash old boytalk to you tomorrow old fruit
moran taing sassenach
p.s what a good scottish name you have grant!

[LA]

you are good on your historyaren`t you . cornwall - kernowwealhas - the foreigners of kern or the west welsh. i was in padstow last summer and read a banner that said " last night i had a nightmare - i dreamt i was an englishman " read up on cornwalls history?!
england owns wales does it? the way the danes and the norman french conquered and owned angleland??
poor old england conquered by the danes and the french and now you have no more empire you are reduced to squabbling with the celts - you sound like my 4 year old daughter ", its my money !!"

Wales has its own assembly, it is still treated as a single unit with England. According to our College History Workbook it was 1535 when Wales became annexed to England.

You dreamt you was an Englishman, what a lovely dream you had. Being able to pay tax that helps pay for England and Scotland.

The Danes and Norman French conquered England. Wales was annexed by England in 1535

Annex: To incorporate (territory) into an existing political unit such as a country, state, county, or city.

Wales was annexed into an existing political unit known as England.

[Tete123]

An interesting debate regarding the founding of the union but I think the main issue LA has, and one that I share is in relation to the West Lothian question.

I cannot understand, and find it completely discrimintory to have the imbalance in the allocation of funds within the disparate of the union. It amount to something like £1500 per head per year, since devolution which Scotland use to fund elderly home care and free NHS prescriptions, including cancer treatments not available to those south of the border; add to that the decision to abolish tuition fees for Scotish uni students and it's understandable why the English feel they are getting a bad deal. In regards the 'free' uni tuition I found a couple of quotes from the Daily Mail (Kirsty Walker 10 June 2007) :

In addition, students from the European Union will also get free university places in Scotland.

But English, Welsh and Northern Irish students will still have to pay for the privilege.

Ironically, Tony Blair had to rely on the votes of Scottish MPs to push through the introduction of tuition fees at English universities.

Both quotes show fundamental problems. The first is obvious, EU students should not benefit from 'free' uni at British taxpayers expense when the same right are not extended to the English, Welsh and N. Irish - who as part of the EU surely have a legal entitlement outside the constraints of the union for equal treatment. The second really highlights the problem with Scotish MPs voting on English issues.

Personally I do not want to see the break-up of the United Kingdom, together Scotland and England have a rich and varied history... some of the greatest British minds have originated from north of the border; Adam Smith - economist and social philosopher, Alexander Graham Bell - inventor of the telephone, Sir Alexander Flemming - discovered penicillin and David Hume - philosopher.

I would like to see a fairer distribution of money allocated and English MPs voting on English only issues - I believe that if this were to happen, much of the deep rooted resentment ( particularly from an English perspective ) would disappear.

[LA]

An interesting debate regarding the founding of the union but I think the main issue LA has, and one that I share is in relation to the West Lothian question.

I cannot understand, and find it completely discrimintory to have the imbalance in the allocation of funds within the disparate of the union. It amount to something like £1500 per head per year, since devolution which Scotland use to fund elderly home care and free NHS prescriptions, including cancer treatments not available to those south of the border; add to that the decision to abolish tuition fees for Scotish uni students and it's understandable why the English feel they are getting a bad deal. In regards the 'free' uni tuition I found a couple of quotes from the Daily Mail (Kirsty Walker 10 June 2007) :




Both quotes show fundamental problems. The first is obvious, EU students should not benefit from 'free' uni at British taxpayers expense when the same right are not extended to the English, Welsh and N. Irish - who as part of the EU surely have a legal entitlement outside the constraints of the union for equal treatment. The second really highlights the problem with Scotish MPs voting on English issues.

Personally I do not want to see the break-up of the United Kingdom, together Scotland and England have a rich and varied history... some of the greatest British minds have originated from north of the border; Adam Smith - economist and social philosopher, Alexander Graham Bell - inventor of the telephone, Sir Alexander Flemming - discovered penicillin and David Hume - philosopher.

I would like to see a fairer distribution of money allocated and English MPs voting on English only issues - I believe that if this were to happen, much of the deep rooted resentment ( particularly from an English perspective ) would disappear.

Not to mention that England; by proportion, is lacking 50MP's.
Labour refuse to give us our own parliament which allows the Scottish to vote on our issues, but we cannot return the favour.

It is ridiculous.

On another note, Alexander Graham Bell was not actually the only inventor of the telephone. The telephone was invented by Antonio Meucci, an Italian-American, from whom Alexander Graham Bell outrageously stole the patent application and copied it.

(Information about the telephone was taken from QI)

[albannach]

the debacle that is devolution has raised many problems and i personally see a referendum on the issue as the only solution. either we stay together as a nation and ditch devolution or scotland and england splits , whatever the people decide.the current set up is a joke and needs resolved one way or another and finally put to bed. I feel this is part of a wider problem in our politics at the moment , the same tired old parties spouting the same old crap.It will never change under the constant to and fro between labour and conservative , and if britain does stay together i am in favour of a referendum on the e.u and continued membership.
with regards to l.a , regarding cornwall i was trying to imply that i found it strange that a cornishman had an obvious anti english banner in his car window , it was the flag of cornwall with the aforementioned slogan on it . upon reading about cornish history i understand a bit better.
l.a you and i will have to agree to dissagree

[albannach]

MEMBERS OF LAST SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT 1707
ALL VOTED "FOR" UNION OF SCOTTISH & ENGLISH PARLIAMENTS
EDINBURGH 1706-1707

LORDS:
Earl of Seafield, Marquis of Montrose, Duke of Argyle, Marquis of Tweeddale, Marquis of Lothian, Earl of Mar, Earl of Loudon, Earl of Crawford, Earl of Sutherland, Earl of Rothes, Earl of Mortoun, Earl of Eglinton, Earl of Roxburgh, Earl of Haddington, Earl of Galloway, Earl of Wemyss, Earl of Dalhousie, Earl of Leven, Earl of Northesk, Earl of Balcarras, Earl of Forfar, Earl of Kilmarnock, Earl of Kintore, Earl of Dunmore, Earl of Marchmont, Earl of Hynford, Earl of Cromarty, Earl of Stair, Earl of Roseberry, Earl of Glasgow, Earl of Hopetoun, Earl of Delorain, Earl of Hay, Viscount Duplin, Viscount Garnock, Lord Forbes, Lord Elphinstoune, Lord Ross, Lord Torphichen, Lord Fraser, Lord Banff, Lord Elibank, Lord Duffus, Lord Rollo.

ALL VOTED "AGAINST" UNION

LORDS:
Duke of Hamilton, Duke of Athol, Marquis of Annandale, Earl of Errol, Earl of Marischal, Earl of Buchan, Earl of Glencairn, Earl of Wigton, Earl of Strathmore, Earl of Selkirk, Earl of Kincardine, Viscount Stermont, Viscount Kilsyth, Lord Semple, Lord Oliphant, Lord Balmarino, Lord Blantyre, Lord Barganey, Lord Belhaven, Lord Colvin, Lord Kinnaird.

ALL VOTED "FOR" UNION

BARONS:
Sir Robert Dickson of Inveresk, William Nisbet of Dirlton, John Cockburn jnr of Ormiston, Sir John Swinton of that ilk, Sir Alexander Campbell of Cessnock, Sir William Ker of Green Head, Archibald Douglas of Cavers, William Bennet of Grubbet, John Murray of Bowhill, John Pringle of Haining, William Morrison of Preston Grange, George Baillie of Jervis Wood, Sir John Johnston of Wester Hall, William Douglas of Dornock, William Stewart of Castle Stewart, John Stewart of Sorbie, Francis Montgomery of Giffan, John Montgomery of Wree, Sir Robert Pollock of that ilk, William Dalrymple of Glen Muir, John Hadden of Glen Agies, Mungo Graham of Gorthy, Sir Thomas Burnet of Leyes, William Seton jnr of Pitmeddon, Alexander Grant jnr of that ilk, Sir Kenneth MacKenzie, Angus MacLeod of Cathol, John Campbell of Mammore, Sir James Cambell of Auchinbreck, James Campbell jnr of Arkinglas, Sir William Anstruther of that ilk, James Halyburton of Pitcur, Alexander Abercrombie of Glasgow, William Maxwell of Cardross, James Dunbar jnr of Hemprigs, John Bruce of Kinross, Robert Stewart of Tillycoultry.

ALL VOTED "AGAINST" UNION

BARONS:
George Lockhart of Carnwath, John Brisbane of Bishopton, Sir James Foulis of Collington, William Cochrane of Kilmarnock, Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun, Sir Humphrey Colquhoun of Luss, Sir Robert Sinclair of Longformacus, Sir John Houston of that ilk, Sir Patrick Home of Renton, John Grahame of Killaney, Sir Gilbert Elliot of Minto, James Graham of Buchlyvie, William Baillie of Lamington, Thomas Sharp of Houston, John Sinclair jnr of Stevenson, Sir Patrick Murray of Auchtertyre, John Sharp of Hoddam, John Murray of Strowan, Alexander Ferguson of Isle, Sir David Ramsey of Balmain, Alexander Gordon of Pitlurg, James More of Stoniewood, John Forbes of Culloden, David Bethune of Balfour, Thomas Hope of Rankieller, Patrick Lyon of Auchterhouse, James Carnagie of Phinhaven, David Graham, Younger of Fintry, James Ogilvie of Boyne, Sir Henry Innes jnr of that ilk, Alexander Mackgie of Dalgown, George MacKenzie of Inchcoulter, Alexander Douglas of Eagleshaw.

ALL VOTE "FOR" THE UNION

BURGESSES:
Sir Patrick Johnstoun, John Serymhowe, Coll. Areskin, John Muir, James Scott, Patrick Bruce, Sir James Smollet, William Carmichael, Daniel MacLeod, John Ross, Sir David Dalrymple, Patrick Ogilvie, William Alvis, John Urquhart, James Spittle, Daniel Campbell, Robert Douglas, George Dalrymple, Sir John Areskin, Patrick Moncrieffe, George Munro, Sir Andrew Home, William Coltran, Sir Peter Halket, Sir Alexander Ogilvie, John Clerk, Sir Hugh Dalrymple, George Allardyce, Roderick MacKenzie, Sir James Stewart, Sir Robert Forbes, Alexander Maitland, Charles Campbell.

ALL VOTED "AGAINST" THE UNION

BURGESSES:
Robert Inglis, Alexander Duff, John Lyon, Alexander Robertson, Francis Mollison, George Spence, John Black, Walter Scott, Sir David Cunningham, Walter Stweart, Robert Kellie, William Johnston, Alexander Watson, John Hutchinson, John Carruthers, Hugh Montgomery, Walter Sutherland, George Home, Alexander Edgar, Douglas Stewart, Robert Frazer, James Oswald, Archibald Shiels, John Bayne, Robert Johnston, George Brodie, James Bethun.

SCOTTISH QUISLINGS WHO SOLD SCOTLAND AND ITS PEOPLE
FOR GOLD

Earl of Marchmont: received £1,104. -17s-7d. In 2006, this was worth £153,957
Earl of Cromarty: received £300. In 2006, this was worth £41,798
Lord Preston Hall: received £200. In 2006, this was worth £27,865
Lord Ormiston: received £200. In 2006, this was worth £27,865
Duke of Montrose: received £200. In 2006, this was worth £27,865
Duke of Athol: received £1000. In 2006, this was worth £139,328
Earl of Balcarres: received £500. In 2006, this was worth £69,664
Earl of Dunmoor: received £200. In 2006, this was worth £27,865
Lord Anstruther: received £300. In 2006, this was worth £41,798
Mr. Stewart of Castle Stewart: received £300. In 2006, this was worth £41,798
Earl of Eglington: received £200. In 2006, this was worth £27,865
Lord Fraser: received £100. In 2006, this was worth £13,932
Lord Cesnock, now Polwarth: received £50. In 2006, this was worth £6,966
Mr. John Campbell: received £200. In 2006, this was worth £27,865
Earl of Forfar: received £100. In 2006, this was worth £13,932
Sir Kenneth MacKenzie: received £100. In 2006, this was worth £13,932
Earl of Glencairn: received £100. In 2006, this was worth £13,932
Earl of Kintore: received £200. In 2006, this was worth £27,865
Earl of Findlator: received £100. In 2006, this was worth £13,932
Lord Forbes: received £50. In 2006, this was worth £6,966
John Muir, Provost of Ayr: received £100. In 2006, this was worth £13,932
Earl of Seafield, Lord Chancellor: £490. In 2006, this was worth £68,266
Marquis of Tweedale: received £1000. In 2006, this was worth £139,328
Duke of Roxburgh: received £500. In 2006, this was worth £69,664
Lord Elibank: received £50. In 2006, this was worth £6,966
Lord Banff: received £11-2/-. In 2006, this was worth £1,550
Major Cunningham of Eckatt: received £100. In 2006, this was worth £13,932
The Messenger who brought the Treaty of Union: received £60. In 2006, this was worth £8,360
Sir William Sharp: received £300. In 2006, this was worth £41,798
Patrick Coultrain, Provost of Wigton: received £25. In 2006, this was worth £3,483
Mr. Alexander Wedderburn: received £75. In 2006, this was worth £10,450
The Commisioner for Equippage & Daily Allowance (Duke of Queensberry): received £12,325. In 2006, this was worth £1,717,220
Stated by THE EARL OF GLASGOW, on oath, and by DAVID NAIRNE, Secretary Depute for Scotland.

[albannach]

Darien Expedition.
'The only means to recover us from our present miserable and despicable condition'.
Background to the Expedition.
As the 17th century drew to its close, lowland Scotland was in a desperate plight due to the famine brought on by seven years of crop failure in succession. Andrew Fletcher put this down to the feudal system of 'runrig' which was grossly inefficient, and the landowners' failure to improve the quality and fertility of the soil. Fletcher had already abandoned runrig and had spent much time and effort in developing efficient land management. During the hot dry summers, the field drainage systems and composting of the soil on his estate farms allowed the crops to survive the high temperatures and dryness of seven dry summers. Only in the Highlands where composting with seaweed was practiced was there no comparable famine.
Another major factor was the high cost of maintaining a standing army for William of Orange to use in fighting his overseas wars in Europe. Borne completely by the people of Scotland this was a heavy burden in light of the fact that 45% of William's army were Scots. Andrew Fletcher says in a speech to Parliament, 'We have voted His Majesty a standing army, though we had more need to have saved the money to have bought bread for thousands of our people that were starving for want afforded us the melancoly prospect of dying by shoals in our streets, and have left behind them reigning contagion, which hath swept away multitudes more, and God knows where it will end. Have not the Scots, ever since the Union of the Crowns been oppressed and tyrannised over by a faction in England, who will neither admit of a Union of the Nations, nor leave us Scots in possession of our own privileges, as Men and Christians?' (Author's note: nothing has really changed since then!)
Fletcher and Paterson worked hard from late 1691 to 1695 to plan a scheme along with others which would reverse Scotland's ill fortunes and generate trade denied to them by the great English monopolies. Therefore in 1693, to pave the way, Andrew Fletcher proposed 'An bill for the encouragement of Foreign Trade.' This was passed with an overwhelming majority. In its original form, the scheme for the Company had been drawn up by a group of Scots merchants in London and principally by the aforementioned William Paterson, Banker, ex buccaneer and trader whose creative intellect was in advance of his time. He and his companions proposed a joint Scots and English venture, but this was effectively squashed by the English trading companies with their monopolies on Colonial trade and the impeachment of its founders before the House of Commons.
In June 1695, the Scots Parliament passed an act authorizing the establishment of a Company of Scotland Trading to Africa and the Indies. The Marquis of Tweeddale was the King's Commissioner, and knew that the King strongly disapproved, however he lent his support to the considerable pressure of the Estates, touched the Act with the sceptre, and thus gave it the royal assent without first giving William the opportunity to read it. The spirit and challenge of this 'noble undertaking' inflamed the imagination of the country. Fletcher said that men and women seemed moved by a Higher Power toward the 'only means to recover us from our present miserable and despicable condition'.. A following attempt to enlist the support of the Hanseatic towns was also stopped by the English merchantile monopoly, and Scotland went bravely ahead alone.
In an atmosphere of feverish enthusiasm, Scots men and women, burghs, corporations and associations subscribed four hundred thousand pounds toward the Company, believed to be half the available capital of the nation. Patriotism was married to profit, and the issue was assured. 'Trade will increase trade,' Paterson had said, 'and money will beget money.' The Council-General of the Company abandoned its earlier thoughts of Africa and decided to establish a colony and an entrepôt on the coast of Darien, the most inhospitable and unhealthy part of the Isthmus of Panama. Ships were bought, built, or chartered in Holland and Hamburg, and the Company's warehouses at Leith and Glasgow were slowly filled with a collection of goods which, it was confidently believed, could be exchanged for the spices, silks and gold of the Orient. 'Darien', said Paterson, would be the 'door of the seas, the key of the universe', reducing by half the time and expense of navigation to China and Japan by the digging of a canal across the isthmus, and bringing peace to both oceans without the guilt of war.
In July, 1698, five ships left Leith upon a great wave of emotion. They sailed north about and down the Atlantic, made a landfall off the coast of Darien in November, and claimed it as the Colony of Caledonia. Many of the colonists were already dead from flux and fever, and their leaders were inefficient and quarrelsome. The splendid harbour chosen was a trap for vessels that could not sail to windward. Ambition, pride and envy, aggravated by ignorant stupidity, destroyed the spirit of those who survived the killing fevers. The town of New Edinburgh was never more than a few palmetto huts, and the ramparts of Fort St Andrew were washed away by the pitiless rain. The Spaniards' claim to Darien had been acknowledged by William and the English government, but their attempt to retake it was repulsed by the Scots in a little jungle skirmish.
The English Parliament then commissioned Admiral Benbow to blockade the colony with a fleet of English Royal Navy frigates to aid the Spanish. This did not deter the colonists who had already dug a half mile section of the canal. When the English colonies of America and the Caribbean were then ordered to give no help to Darien, the survivors lost their courage and abandoned the huts, the fort and the bay. While this was going on, Andrew Fletcher was indefatigable in raising another £300,000 to equip four relief ships from the Forth. In a debate in Parliament he expressed his anger and resentment of English arrogance and contempt,
'They must not think that we have so far degenerated from the courage and honour of our ancestors as tamely to submit to become their vassals, when for two thousand years, We have maintained our freedom, and therefore it is not in their interest to oppress us too much. If they consult their histories they will find that we always broke their yoke at the long run!'
Despite the bitterness of famine, and the shortage of money and supplies, Scotland had assembled another expedition of four ships, and it was already at sea before the failure of the first was known. It reached Caledonia in November, 1699, and found only a 'vast, howling wilderness', but the huts were rebuilt and the fort reoccupied. From the beginning there was jealousy and disunity, fever, desertion and mutiny, and the ministers sent by the General Assembly violently abused the sick and dying for their 'atheistical cursing and swearing, brutish drunkenness and detestable mockery'. Once again the Spaniards attacked, and were once again thrown back in the green wet mist of the jungle by the efforts of the Highland fencibles sent by the Duke of Argyle. When they blockaded the colony by sea and land, advanced their guns and trenches to the rotting ramparts of the fort, the Scots resisted bravely for a month and then surrendered. On April 12, 1700, Caledonia was finally abandoned to the Spanish.
In the first week of May, three ships sighted the hills of Jamaica. Two hundred and fifty souls had died of yellowjack on this voyage to Jamaica. In the following two months, with little relief and no credit, another hundred died. The Darien venture was perhaps the worst disaster in Scotland's history, and few nations can withstand the terrible loss of pride and money. Its exchequer and storehouses were empty, and its challenge to the mercantile power of England was now a mockery. Nine ships which the Company had bought or chartered were sunk, burnt or abandoned. A call had been made upon three-quarters of the subscribed capital, and it was all lost. Only three hundred of the colonists, soldiers and seamen returned to Scotland. Two thousand men, women and children had been drowned at sea, buried in the foetid earth of Darien, abandoned in Spanish prisons, or lost for ever as indentured servants (slaves) in English colonies. The anger of the people was intense, and was not reduced when the King said that their colony had been a threat to peace. Nor was his promise to promote their trade, to repair their losses if possible, more than bitter comfort. Few men blamed the failure of the colony upon the nature of its location, the contentious inefficiency of its leaders, or the blind ignorance of its promoters. English treachery was responsible. Great men who knew this to be an exaggeration, publicly agreed rather than challenge the outraged emotions of the nation

[Patrioticman]

You very long memory of previous disputes with no relevence of today show that you Sir are living with your ancesters grudges and way out of touch with today.
You should be grate full to the people of the rest of the UK for the financial support today for us in Scotland.
Have you ever heard about sharing?
It is one land mass and as such works very well with shared services.
I have used the health service many times in England and Scotland through my disabilty and I can assure you we enjoy a far better service than England and yet we glady take the extra cash given to us with my great thanks.about £1700 per head[official]
I suggest you take a look at a map of Scotland and see why we need all the extra help for health services and others.
The geography of Scotland alone creates many problems with many services and adds to the cost.
We could not feed our selves alone unless you want to live on neeps and tatties ,take a look at the amount of produce that comes from the south on motorways and rail alone.
Imported goods as well.
The fact is Scotland is far better off in the union finance wise.
Just take one figure I looked at for exports from Scottish whisky.
Exchequer recieves about 217 million revenue a year from spirits
Whisky could be probably half that or less [no officail figiures available]
Now take a independent Scotland figure from that it could be about one seventh of that,is it not better to share the large pot than all of a little pot.I can not even produce a true figure from official sites.But I bet my guess is not far out
It is better to take a share from 62million people than 5.2million
Independent scotland cannot tax another country
All figures quoted by the indepence people are for the whole UK and taken in a percentages of that[Official Scotish site]
No one even thinks about the real figures that would be with independence.
It is also time we asked the Scottish government what they are doing with all the money they already recieve in block grants from the UK taxpayer.
Works out well over £6.000,000. per head already.That is not for full service to Scotland just think what they would need with independence.
They already spend billions on them selves and they would need more of the same
Remember politicians first,then there party us last.

[albannach]

H.u.n???????????????

[angelcountry]

Thinking about the revolution song we realize that, thats where slavery was halted.

[Alba]

You very long memory of previous disputes with no relevence of today show that you Sir are living with your ancesters grudges and way out of touch with today.
You should be grate full to the people of the rest of the UK for the financial support today for us in Scotland.
Have you ever heard about sharing?
It is one land mass and as such works very well with shared services.
I have used the health service many times in England and Scotland through my disabilty and I can assure you we enjoy a far better service than England and yet we glady take the extra cash given to us with my great thanks.about £1700 per head[official]
I suggest you take a look at a map of Scotland and see why we need all the extra help for health services and others.
The geography of Scotland alone creates many problems with many services and adds to the cost.
We could not feed our selves alone unless you want to live on neeps and tatties ,take a look at the amount of produce that comes from the south on motorways and rail alone.
Imported goods as well.
The fact is Scotland is far better off in the union finance wise.
Just take one figure I looked at for exports from Scottish whisky.
Exchequer recieves about 217 million revenue a year from spirits
Whisky could be probably half that or less [no officail figiures available]
Now take a independent Scotland figure from that it could be about one seventh of that,is it not better to share the large pot than all of a little pot.I can not even produce a true figure from official sites.But I bet my guess is not far out
It is better to take a share from 62million people than 5.2million
Independent scotland cannot tax another country
All figures quoted by the indepence people are for the whole UK and taken in a percentages of that[Official Scotish site]
No one even thinks about the real figures that would be with independence.
It is also time we asked the Scottish government what they are doing with all the money they already recieve in block grants from the UK taxpayer.
Works out well over £6.000,000. per head already.That is not for full service to Scotland just think what they would need with independence.
They already spend billions on them selves and they would need more of the same
Remember politicians first,then there party us last.

Of course your financial figures are rubbish. I'll let you read and maybe you'll understand...

Figures from the Scotch Whisky Association show that the industry supports 10,000 jobs in Scotland with a further 30,000 relying on it as farmers, suppliers and distributors. In the UK it is one of the top five manufacturing earners with annual export revenues in excess of £2.8 billion. The SWA points to the fact that more than £800 million a year is generated for the government in excise and duty and VAT while tax accounts for more than 70 per cent of the retail price of a typical bottle of Scotch whisky.

But sources close to the industry argue that most of the tax is passed on to the consumer and not paid by the distillers.

One source says: "Nearly 90 per cent of Scotch is exported overseas so the tax is raised overseas. I keep hearing about how high the duty is on a bottle of Scotch but that cost is passed on to the consumer. The industry is very happy to exploit the Scottish-ness of their product but when it suits them they are also happy to move the value added part of the industry, packaging and bottling, out of the country."

Already between 15 per cent and 20 per cent of Scotch whisky is bottled overseas. Whyte & Mackay has recently commenced bottling for domestic Indian consumption at its plant in Maharashtra, western India, and analysts say there could be more.

Got it then... probably not. As I said to you, it's not the Scottish nationalists who play with the figures, it's the Westminster Brit Nats who twist and fiddle the books. And evidently, an independent Scottish government could stop them bottling whisky overseas etc.

Oh but incidentally, you're the very first person I've ever heard suggest such ridiculous figures for Scottish whisky revenue and for that there must be some kind of special Great Brit Award waiting for you somewhere. Maybe the Queen will give it to you personally.