UK's Johnson says devolving powers to Scotland was 'a disaster'

[vogie]

36 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

They like the feeling of power having us colonized gives them ????

 

 

Perhaps the best definition of colonialism has been offered by Ronald Horvath in his 1972 A Definition of Colonialism:

It seems generally, if not universally, agreed that colonialism is a form of domination – the control by individuals or groups over the territory and/or behaviour of other individuals or groups. (Colonialism has also been seen as a form of exploitation, with emphasis on economic variables, as in the Marxist-Leninist literature, and as a culture-change process, as in anthropology… The idea of domination is closely related to the concept of power. (Horvath, 1972)

The Scots were trying to colonise other countries long before our union existed, one of the main reasons that they chose to approach the English to bail them out is because of their failed attempts to colonise other parts of the world like Nova Scotia and Panama.

 

Scots thrived in the colonies of the British Empire — which makes it all the more ironic that the main reason they entered a 300-year union with England in the first place was because their own attempt at a colony had been such an unbelievable failure.

 

 

https://nationalpost.com/news/why-scotland-is-part-of-great-britain-disastrous-17th-century-colony-in-panama-behind-union

[Neeranam]

10 minutes ago, vogie said:

The Scots were trying to colonise other countries long before our union existed, one of the main reasons that they chose to approach the English to bail them out is because of their failed attempts to colonise other parts of the world like Nova Scotia and Panama.

 

Scots thrived in the colonies of the British Empire — which makes it all the more ironic that the main reason they entered a 300-year union with England in the first place was because their own attempt at a colony had been such an unbelievable failure.

 

 

https://nationalpost.com/news/why-scotland-is-part-of-great-britain-disastrous-17th-century-colony-in-panama-behind-union

Political union in Britain, itself a contradiction of Scots law, was from the outset viewed by England as a means of securing domination over the Scots (Pittock, 1997), and as a method of insuring the acculturation of Scotland to England as part of a wider process of safeguarding English cultural dominance over the whole of Britain (Defoe, 1706). Westminster has always understood its own Act of Union with the parliament of Scotland as the absorption of Scotland into itself own domain, and the lack of parliamentary parity between the two states in the British polity has made English domination an effective reality.

 

https://randompublicjournal.com/2016/05/30/notes-on-the-colonisation-of-scotland/

[vogie]

16 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

Political union in Britain, itself a contradiction of Scots law, was from the outset viewed by England as a means of securing domination over the Scots (Pittock, 1997), and as a method of insuring the acculturation of Scotland to England as part of a wider process of safeguarding English cultural dominance over the whole of Britain (Defoe, 1706). Westminster has always understood its own Act of Union with the parliament of Scotland as the absorption of Scotland into itself own domain, and the lack of parliamentary parity between the two states in the British polity has made English domination an effective reality.

 

https://randompublicjournal.com/2016/05/30/notes-on-the-colonisation-of-scotland/

Quite interesting but I was more interested in the author, when it is written by a very enthusiastic Nationalist, well he would say that now wouldn't he. 

He has been described as - "Jeggit” is the nom de plume - and more often than not also the nom de guerre - of Jason Michael McCann, a Scottish scribbler and independentista living in Dublin."

 

I doubt very much if we are getting an unbiased appraisel of events, it would be just like reading an account from one of our glorious Scots Nats on here.

 

In all honesty Neeraran, you are the most honest of all the Scots Nats on here and I prefered your original reason you want to partition the United Kingdom.????

[Neeranam]

5 minutes ago, vogie said:

Quite interesting but I was more interested in the author, when it is written by a very enthusiastic Nationalist, well he would say that now wouldn't he. 

He has been described as - "Jeggit” is the nom de plume - and more often than not also the nom de guerre - of Jason Michael McCann, a Scottish scribbler and independentista living in Dublin."

 

I doubt very much if we are getting an unbiased appraisel of events, it would be just like reading an account from one of our glorious Scots Nats on here.

 

In all honesty Neeraran, you are the most honest of all the Scots Nats on here and I prefered your original reason you want to partition the United Kingdom.????

 

It's good to hear you are open-minded like me; it's good to read a variety of sources when learning history, whether biased or not. 

[StevieAus]

On 11/17/2020 at 7:02 PM, 2530Ubon said:

That's what the Scottish agreed to...

In 1707, England agreed to give Scotland money to pay off its debts, and both countries’ parliaments passed the Acts of Union to become one nation.

Americans fought a war to join unite as one nation, England bought another nation (after several failed attempts at conquering). You could say the scots are part of the oldest recorded profession.

After  reading a fairly detailed account of what happened at Culloden, which occurred later than what you describe above, I would have thought the Scots or Charle’s Jacobites we’re fairly well conquered.

[Rookiescot]

2 minutes ago, StevieAus said:

After  reading a fairly detailed account of what happened at Culloden, which occurred later than what you describe above, I would have thought the Scots or Charle’s Jacobites we’re fairly well conquered.

Almost half of the Duke of Cumberlands army was made up of Scots.

The Jacobite rebellion was essentially a religious civil war.

[RayC]

14 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

Gordon Brown is right: federalism is on its way if the Scots shun independence

 

See also the pretentiously title work of fiction, 'the vow': What now for 'the vow'?

Thanks for the links. I am rather embarrassed to discover how little I knew about the 2014 referendum.

 

The contents of 'The Vow' are open to interpretation (no doubt by design). However, it's stretching the boundaries to claim - as you did - that this amounts to  'a promise' that we would have ".. the closest thing possible to a federal UK". 

 

Whether Westminster has kept to the spirit of 'The Vow' is also a matter of interpretation: https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-qa-westminster-broken-promise-scotland (somewhat dated but still relevant I think)

 

14 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

But it is only within the last 10 years that Scotland has completely eschewed UK national parties and gone its own way. We are no longer a united kingdom and our priorities and aspirations appear to be at odds with those of England.

I would agree that the UK has become  - and still is becoming  - more fractious, but again it is stretching a point to claim that ".. Scotland has completely eschewed UK national parties..". In the 2016 Scottish parliamentary election, 50% of the vote went to one of the major UK national parties.

 

14 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Any single country overruling the political will of another countries is surely a bad thing? I can see absolutely no situation where there can be anything positive derived from it. 

I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment, but think that it is missing an all-important word: 'sovereign', which should be placed before 'country(ies)'. The UK is (currently) the sovereign state and, by definition, can't overrule the political will of itself.

 

14 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

There is no reason that it cannot be a good thing for all countries in the UK. 

Indeed and if there is a divorce in the future, let's hope that this is the case. However, it is also possible that the opposite will occur.

[7by7]

6 hours ago, Neeranam said:

Political union in Britain, itself a contradiction of Scots law, was from the outset viewed by England as a means of securing domination over the Scots

 It was also seen as a means by Scottish investors in the Darien scheme and other ventures of having their debts paid by England via the Article 15 grant. That plus the many other accusations of bribery and corruption caused Burns to say: "We're bought and sold for English Gold, Such a Parcel of Rogues in a Nation." Though whether he was the original source or was quoting another is open to debate.

 

 

[RuamRudy]

On 11/19/2020 at 5:18 PM, RayC said:

The contents of 'The Vow' are open to interpretation (no doubt by design). However, it's stretching the boundaries to claim - as you did - that this amounts to  'a promise' that we would have ".. the closest thing possible to a federal UK". 

I was paraphrasing the least toxic Better Together spokesman - here is what Gordon Brown actually said:

 

"We’re going to be, within a year or two, as close to a federal state as you can be in a country where one nation is 85 per cent of the population."

 

On 11/19/2020 at 5:18 PM, RayC said:

In the 2016 Scottish parliamentary election, 50% of the vote went to one of the major UK national parties.

You mean collectively, UK-wide parties took 50% of the vote? That is near enough correct, but this means that near half the electorate turned their backs on UK parties. That is not a normal situation which screams UK homogeneity. 

 

On 11/19/2020 at 5:18 PM, RayC said:

I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment, but think that it is missing an all-important word: 'sovereign', which should be placed before 'country(ies)'. The UK is (currently) the sovereign state and, by definition, can't overrule the political will of itself.

 

Not necessarily correct, but very technical and dry - basically the concept of parliamentary sovereignty exists in English law but not in Scottish law. The Claim of Right 1989 declares the sovereignty of the Scottish people. This was debated in the HoC in 2018 and was formally endorsed there:

 

"On 4 July 2018, the House of Commons officially endorsed the principles of the Claim of Right, agreeing that the people of Scotland are sovereign and that they have the right to determine the best form of government for Scotland's needs. However this was a non-binding endorsement and did not create any legal recognition of the Claim of Right."

 

Of course, the last sentence is a bit of a let down, but the principle remains (hopefully).

 

On 11/19/2020 at 5:18 PM, RayC said:

Indeed and if there is a divorce in the future, let's hope that this is the case. However, it is also possible that the opposite will occur.

 

The potential fall-out of a split should obviously be considered, but I see it as no reason to back off - the threat of dummies being spat is not a good reason not to do something you feel is intrinsically right. 

[RuamRudy]

On 11/19/2020 at 7:38 PM, 7by7 said:

It was also seen as a means by Scottish investors in the Darien scheme and other ventures of having their debts paid by England via the Article 15 grant. That plus the many other accusations of bribery and corruption caused Burns to say: "We're bought and sold for English Gold, Such a Parcel of Rogues in a Nation." Though whether he was the original source or was quoting another is open to debate.

 

Ultimately it is a red herring designed to cast doubt in the minds of some Scots by making them question their innate decision making ability based on the mistakes made by a relatively small number of people hundreds of years ago. When their armoury is so bare, they need to throw any mud pies at hand. 

[RayC]

3 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

I was paraphrasing the least toxic Better Together spokesman - here is what Gordon Brown actually said:

 

"We’re going to be, within a year or two, as close to a federal state as you can be in a country where one nation is 85 per cent of the population."

 

But that doesn't support your original claim that Scotland was promised federalism: "One of the many promises made in 2014 to keep the Scots pliant was, in the event of a no vote, the closest thing possible to a federal UK. Like the other promises, that was ditched the day after the vote was tallied."

 

'The Vow' is open to interpretation but - unless it appears elsewhere - there was no promise from Cameron that there would be a federal UK post-referendum. Likewise - although as a former PM, Brown's words might carry some weight in the party - it was never official Labour policy; it's an opinion not a commitment or promise. Only the Liberals of the three UK wide parties made that commitment.

 

3 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

You mean collectively, UK-wide parties took 50% of the vote? That is near enough correct, but this means that near half the electorate turned their backs on UK parties. That is not a normal situation which screams UK homogeneity. 

 

No it doesn't, but neither does it support your claim that "Scotland has COMPLETELY (my caps) eschewed UK national parties and gone its own way"

 

3 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Not necessarily correct, but very technical and dry - basically the concept of parliamentary sovereignty exists in English law but not in Scottish law. The Claim of Right 1989 declares the sovereignty of the Scottish people. This was debated in the HoC in 2018 and was formally endorsed there:

 

"On 4 July 2018, the House of Commons officially endorsed the principles of the Claim of Right, agreeing that the people of Scotland are sovereign and that they have the right to determine the best form of government for Scotland's needs. However this was a non-binding endorsement and did not create any legal recognition of the Claim of Right."

 

Of course, the last sentence is a bit of a let down, but the principle remains (hopefully).

 

'The Claim of Right' is something else that I was unaware of. Now that you have brought it to my attention, what is it's point today, given it has no legal force and the various Scotland Acts do, and have superceded it?

 

I also don't see what relevence this has to my statement that the (current) sovereign state is the United Kingdom? (This is the state that is recognised internationally).

 

3 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

The potential fall-out of a split should obviously be considered, but I see it as no reason to back off - the threat of dummies being spat is not a good reason not to do something you feel is intrinsically right. 

 

Indeed, but equally a Scottish unionist can make the same argument for their position.

[RuamRudy]

On 11/20/2020 at 7:03 PM, RayC said:

But that doesn't support your original claim that Scotland was promised federalism: "One of the many promises made in 2014 to keep the Scots pliant was, in the event of a no vote, the closest thing possible to a federal UK. Like the other promises, that was ditched the day after the vote was tallied."

You say tomato, I say tomato.

 

On 11/20/2020 at 2:45 PM, RuamRudy said:

I was paraphrasing the least toxic Better Together spokesman - here is what Gordon Brown actually said:

 

"We’re going to be, within a year or two, as close to a federal state as you can be in a country where one nation is 85 per cent of the population."

 

On 11/20/2020 at 7:03 PM, RayC said:

'The Vow' is open to interpretation but - unless it appears elsewhere - there was no promise from Cameron that there would be a federal UK post-referendum. Likewise - although as a former PM, Brown's words might carry some weight in the party - it was never official Labour policy; it's an opinion not a commitment or promise. Only the Liberals of the three UK wide parties made that commitment.

 

As you previously pointed out, your awareness of the 2014 referendum was limited. The Tories, then as now having next to no credibility in Scotland, could not send their leaders north without creating rancour so Brown was co-opted as a Better Together figurehead. He may not have been in power, but the inference from his input was intended to be taken as having tacit government approval, a bit like Johnson's big red bus of lies, designed to fool the gullible. 

 

On 11/20/2020 at 7:03 PM, RayC said:

neither does it support your claim that "Scotland has COMPLETELY (my caps) eschewed UK national parties and gone its own way"

 

Of course it does. Our UK governing party polls at almost half that of the governing party; you may not agree, but that is your failure to recognise that we are on a different path.

 

On 11/20/2020 at 7:03 PM, RayC said:

'The Claim of Right' is something else that I was unaware of. Now that you have brought it to my attention, what is it's point today, given it has no legal force and the various Scotland Acts do, and have superceded it?

 

I also don't see what relevence this has to my statement that the (current) sovereign state is the United Kingdom? (This is the state that is recognised internationally).

 

In that case, you need to understand the difference between international and domestic sovereignty.

 

 

[RayC]

On 11/25/2020 at 12:11 PM, RuamRudy said:

You say tomato, I say tomato.

 

No, it is not simply a question of interpretation as you imply. You stated that Scotland was effectively promised federalism. This was not the case. In any event, for the UK to be a federal state there would also need to be an English parliament. I'm pretty sure that was not mentioned by Cameron, Miliband or others.

 

On 11/25/2020 at 12:11 PM, RuamRudy said:

 

As you previously pointed out, your awareness of the 2014 referendum was limited. The Tories, then as now having next to no credibility in Scotland, could not send their leaders north without creating rancour so Brown was co-opted as a Better Together figurehead. He may not have been in power, but the inference from his input was intended to be taken as having tacit government approval, a bit like Johnson's big red bus of lies, designed to fool the gullible. 

 

That (English) Tories had no credibility in Scotland seems largely irrelevant to the point in question.  (As an aside, the Scottish Tory leader at the time, Ruth Davidson, was I believe, generally greatly respected even by her political opponents)

 

In any event, I do not see how you can possibly conclude that "... the inference from (Brown's) input was intended to be taken as having tacit government approval." As you are well aware 'Better Together' was a temporary organisation formed by the three main pro-union parties. A former Labour PM would not have the authority to act as a spokesman - in a formal or tacit capacity - for a Tory-led national collation government, of which Labour was no part. Moreover, as 'The Scotman' article which you referenced stated, Brown was not even speaking for the Labour party: "Mr Brown’s backing for federalism goes further than that set out in Scottish Labour’s plans to devolve the bulk of income tax to Holyrood in the event of a No vote."

 

On 11/25/2020 at 12:11 PM, RuamRudy said:

 

Of course it does. Our UK governing party polls at almost half that of the governing party; you may not agree, but that is your failure to recognise that we are on a different path.

 

Of course it doesn't, not least because you have changed your original proposition. You originally stated: "Scotland has completely eschewed UK national parties and gone its own way". The latest opinion polls suggest that the UK national parties are (combined) polling at +/-45% in Scotland which is hardly insignificant. 

 

Scotland may be moving along/ towards a different path, but this hardly supports your proposition that the UK national parties have been rejected in Scotland today.

 

On 11/25/2020 at 12:11 PM, RuamRudy said:

 

In that case, you need to understand the difference between international and domestic sovereignty.

 

 

 

I'm aware of the difference.

 

The phrase 'domestic sovereignty' really only has meaning in the context of devolution and within the UK. Amongst the international community, sovereignty is ascribed to the UK as a single unit, not to the four nations as individual entities.