Is England More Of A Scottish Colony than Scotland?

Scottish nationalists often proclaim they’re a “British colony”. Under the Act of Union we are in fact one, but if we were separate countries would England be the real colony of Scotland?

Before dismissing this think: what makes a colony, a colony…
1.The colony sends money off to the Parent Nation.
Well: Because of the U.K’s Barnet Formula spending per head 2003/4 was £7346 in Scotland and £5940 in England. Source: en.wikipedia.org...
2.The colony cannot decide on matters that don’t affect the parent nation, but the parent nation can decide on matters that affect the colony (only).
Well: Because of the Scottish Parliament, Labour Mp’s can vote in favour of things like Labour’s Top Up Fee’s even though they don’t effect they’re own constituents.
3.There is generally a big difference between the politics of the colony and the politics of the parent nation.
Well: Scotland has historically been more pro socialism and supportive of the Labour Party than England. As a result the Tories at the last election won more votes in England than Labour yet still lost it: www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2005/05/07/ntory507.xml
www.historylearningsite.co.uk...
Also: The Conservatives have only one of the 59 available Scottish Westminster seats, and only 17 of the 129 seats of the Scottish Parliament.
en.wikipedia.org...

Furthermore: Somehow we seem to have been a bad colony as the majority of Scottish people now want independence (every empire has its day, hay?).
politics.guardian.co.uk...
www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2006/11/26/nunion26.xml
www.angus-reid.com...

(Sadly because of the difference between the public, and political parties any chance for independence seems very unlikely right now).

However I’ll leave the Scottish independence question to the Scottish.
But as far as English independence from Scotland goes; I support it!!!!

What about you? Is England more of a colony than they?

P.S I agree with the Act of Union over Defence as it’ll be because of Britain they aren’t invaded, and likewise no doubt because of Britain they’re interests abroad will be defended). Otherwise Scotland could abolish the cost of a defence force, and still depend on us when crunch came to crunch. This is unfair because we’re pragmatically (and ideologically) bound to protect them.

Look up the history of the Bank of England. It was started by a massive loan from a rich Scotsman. Even more interesting to the conspiracy theorists it was build directly over a roman temple to Mithras. It was built by the same architect who created the Masonic Hall in London.

Yes, the english eventually lost their centuries long struggle against scottish rule.

Jon

Originally posted by Liberal1984
Scottish nationalists often proclaim they’re a “British colony”. Under the Act of Union we are in fact one, but if we were separate countries would England be the real colony of Scotland?

1.The colony sends money off to the Parent Nation.
Well: Because of the U.K’s Barnet Formula spending per head 2003/4 was £7346 in Scotland and £5940 in England. Source: en.wikipedia.org...

If Scotland separated from the rest of the United Kingdom, the Barnet Formula would no longer apply - Britain wouldn't keep sending money to Scotland after it left the Union. It would be under no obligation to do so, either - colonies are.

2.The colony cannot decide on matters that don’t affect the parent nation, but the parent nation can decide on matters that affect the colony (only).
Well: Because of the Scottish Parliament, Labour Mp’s can vote in favour of things like Labour’s Top Up Fee’s even though they don’t effect they’re own constituents.

Again, this would no longer apply if Scotland became independent. The only reason this anomaly exists is because no government (Labour or Tory) has had the guts to sort it out - clearly it needs to be addressed in such a way that both gives England a voice but preserves the Union.

3.There is generally a big difference between the politics of the colony and the politics of the parent nation.
Well: Scotland has historically been more pro socialism and supportive of the Labour Party than England. As a result the Tories at the last election won more votes in England than Labour yet still lost it: www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2005/05/07/ntory507.xml
www.historylearningsite.co.uk...
Also: The Conservatives have only one of the 59 available Scottish Westminster seats, and only 17 of the 129 seats of the Scottish Parliament.

This is down to a number of things, but most of all down to Scotland's previous experiences under Conservative governments (especially Thatcher) and Conservative electoral strategy rather than anything else. Oddly enough, in the 1979 General Election the Scottish Conservatives did comparatively well - yes, *gasp*, Scottish people voted for Thatcher! Only in subsequent elections did the tide start to turn against the Conservatives in Scotland, and since then they have never fully recovered (though I would suggest that they are on the road to political reconciliation with Scotland... it's a long term process, however).

(Sadly because of the difference between the public, and political parties any chance for independence seems very unlikely right now).

Well, support for these things fluctuate, especially for nationalist causes (or so history tells us). The SNP have experienced it, as has the BNP (although mostly in local elections) and Plaid Cymru too. Remember that Labour have been in power in Scotland since the devolved Parliament has been set up... it's inevitable that people want a change (and in many cases wanted to give a kicking to Labour because of Blair, Iraq and so on). The SNP were the only credible opponent to Labour (the Lib Dems were in coalition with Labour, and the Tories weren't popular enough). The campaigns at the recent elections were also a major part of the equation - Labour ran a very doom-and-gloom campaign which just turns people off. The SNP ran an upbeat and optimistic campaign and it paid off (just).

However I’ll leave the Scottish independence question to the Scottish.
But as far as English independence from Scotland goes; I support it!!!!

Why?

What did Scotland and England do as separate countries that outshone what we have done together, as Britain? The answer, you'll find, is very little.

Britain (not England or Scotland alone!) spearheaded the industrial revolution, built a navy that ruled the waves, created the largest empire the world has ever seen (25% of the world's land area and population were part of a British colony only a century ago), fought off numerous dictators and despots in many cases against all the odds (Napoleon, the Kaiser, Hitler), played a major role in spreading democracy around the globe (India [the largest democracy in the world!], Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, Sierra Leone) and had a major role in stamping out the slave trade (though admittedly Britain did play a major role in starting the Atlantic slave trade in the first place... we did abolish slavery long before many other nations, however [e.g. the US]).

I don't claim that Britain has been perfect (with regards to both its actions towards the rest of the world and the actions towards its own citizens) - it hasn't - but I still feel that we're so much better for being united than we ever would be divided.

"United they stand, divided they fall" and all that

lol @ scotland.

nice quote from trainspotting:-

Tommy: Doesn't it make you proud to be Scottish?

Mark "Rent-boy" Renton: It's #E being Scottish! We're the lowest of the low. The scum of the #ing Earth! The most wretched miserable servile pathetic trash that was ever shat on civilization. Some people hate the English. I don't. They're just wankers. We, on the other hand, are colonized by wankers. Can't even find a decent culture to get colonized by. We're ruled by effete assholes. It's a #e state of affairs to be in, Tommy, and all the fresh air in the world won't make any #ing difference!

I am reminded of teh BBC's recent show 'Is it cos I am black' in which an Asian comedian (so we were told), a disabled guy in a wheelchair and an able-bodied middleclass white male went around Britain trying to see just how outrageously 'PC' the UK has become.

Of course besides a couple of examples of people trying to be nice to the Asian guy and the disabled bloke the truth was that in all substantive instances the able-bodied middlecalss white male was preferred over the other 2 despite them all having the same qualifications and experience levels.

The same holds true here, England is not oppressed no matter how many smart a*sed quips about some of the present senior politicians being Scots.
Least of all by Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

In a way Ste2652 you bolster the argument for independence since (as you keep saying) if Scotland was a separate country then non of England’s behaviour that gives it so many parells with a colony would continue.

Why I Support English Independence From Scotland…

1. Labour would not have won the last election in England because the Tories received more votes in England (as previously shown).
2. It’s good for democracy if democratic representation is more direct.
There are longstanding, differences between the political orientations of Scottish and English people (in general); so why not allow these political identities to pursue their own destinies in parliaments independent of one another.
3. The problems I started this thread with exist not because they’re right but because of political conveniences they result in (which is caused by the Union). They are longstanding, so I suspect they will go on existing as long as we are part of the union.
4. Scotland tends to have more manufacturing related businesses than the rest of the U.K. Consequently there is a good argument for separate currencies with separate interest rates, as heavy industries thrive of lower valued currencies. A separate currency system would be great for both U.K and Scottish financial interests.
5.

What did Scotland and England do as separate countries that outshone what we have done together, as Britain? The answer, you'll find, is very little.

The question I pose is what can England or Scotland not do as separate countries that they can do together?

Are we really a stronger Britain if parking fines are the same in Edinburgh as in London? If criminals receive exactly the same punishments? Or Children copy the same curriculum?
Frankly from my point of view it’s the failed logic of Collectivisation (which was put to the ultimate test in Soviet Russia).

Ste2652 You mentioned how it was England and Scotland that created the British Empire.
(As I’ve said) I agree with The Union over defence. Not only is it right that we both shoulder the cost for having to protect one another, but there is definitely strength in numbers in all things related to wars and military spending.

If I was Russian I could understand giving places like Estonia, Poland, and Hungary independence in all areas except defence. If the Russians had kept on with a united military then the people of Eastern Europe would possess (by far) the worlds most powerful military. It would be as good as what the communists gave them, but capitalist funded instead. Sadly (for them) they gave everybody total independence and now everyone is unnecessarily weak (on the power projection front).

Other Reasons For England’s Independence…
1. As long as England and Scotland are one, the Barnett Formula is likely to continue for the same political reasons as it does now. The Conservatives (with only 1 Scottish MP) could get rid of it. However they remain committed to the Union and as long as they are, it will be in their interests to try to gain support in Scotland (not loose it further by significantly cutting Scotland’s public spending). It might be fair and right in England, but we’d barely notice it because (being bigger) it’s only a small amount of the total money English taxpayers raise.
.
2.

The only reason this anomaly exists is because no government (Labour or Tory) has had the guts to sort it out

No: The reason why Scottish MP’s can vote on English matters that don’t affect their constituents is because it’s in the Labour parties interests. For example its likely university top-up fees would not have passed The Commons without the support of Scottish MP’s (funnily enough it’s because of the Scottish parliament they don’t exist in Scotland).
Labour argues “it’s right” Scottish MP’s can vote like this because: “of the need to preserve the union”. But in actual fact its plain for all to see that Scottish MP’s voting on party lines (behind stuff that’s frankly non of their business) undermines the union.
The Conservatives haven’t been in power recently enough to correct this constitutional problem, but they have indicated their intentions to do so.

3.

This is down to a number of things, but most of all down to Scotland's previous experiences under Conservative governments (especially Thatcher) and Conservative electoral strategy rather than anything else.

Very true, but it’s not the whole picture. Firstly politics tends to run in families (and even before Thatcher) Scotland was still generally pro Labour due to the many working class people employed in its past heavy industries.
Secondly because the Barnett Formula delivers Scotland more money than they raise in tax’s you’d expect them to be more pro government spending because they experience significantly more from it. £7346 in Scotland verses
£5940 in England per head, per year (Source: en.wikipedia.org...)

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

So to boil it down... one of your key arguments for Scottish independence is because Scottish people tend to support Labour in general elections and you don't? Ergo, Scottish independence would serve your political motives. You'll forgive me for thinking that putting party before country is contemptible.

This is the view I find implied in statements like these:

Originally posted by Liberal1984
1. Labour would not have won the last election in England because the Tories received more votes in England (as previously shown)

...

Very true, but it’s not the whole picture. Firstly politics tends to run in families (and even before Thatcher) Scotland was still generally pro Labour due to the many working class people employed in its past heavy industries.

...

Secondly because the Barnett Formula delivers Scotland more money than they raise in tax’s you’d expect them to be more pro government spending because they experience significantly more from it.

I also want to pick up on this:

Originally posted by Liberal1984
The Conservatives haven’t been in power recently enough to correct this constitutional problem, but they have indicated their intentions to do so.

The so-called West Lothian Question has been around since the 1970s. As I recall, Britain had a Conservative Government between 1979-1997. Eighteen years is, in my book, plenty of time to sort this question out. They didn't - why? Because they didn't have the guts to take it on. Nor have Labour. Brown has danced around it, trying to avoid the anomaly between England and Scotland. Pretty much every single political party would prefer that people stop asking the question rather than do something about it.

I really must say that I find English/Scottish/Welsh/British nationalism (nationalism in general, really. But people don't confuse nationalism and patriotism) extremely hard to fathom. From a logical, rational point of view it makes no sense to break up the Union. Still, logic and politics aren't exactly the best of bedfellows.

I agree we have been far more productive as a union than we ever were or will be seperately.

The only major beef I've got with Scotland is that rather silly and immature streak of nationalism that's illustrated by the attitude of some Scots who would rather support Nazis United than cheer on an English football team in the world cup. That's pathetic.

That and Alex Salmond looks like an over fed sh** house rat and I don't trust him.

I really don't see why some English people appear to be so sensitive about this (I am English with strong Scottish and Irish roots).

I certainly don't think it is something especially unique to English or Scot.

Any 'union' or nation with distinct regional elements particularly those where one is seen to be economically much larger (or stronger) tends to have that sort of rivalry.

It doesn't seem to me to be anything unusual or particularly harmful and it's certainly nothing new.

At every point of substance and significance since the Act of Union the loyalty of the Scot to the concept of 'Britain' and the 'British' has never been found wanting (and even with quasi-independent Ireland the same is true given the large numbers of Irishmen who volunteered in WW2).

I mean really, who seriously cares about someone's bl**dy football preferences?

As for Alec Salmond?
I can at least warm to a guy who although he is an ex-banker & a career politician and personally prefers the idea of an independent Scotland is honest and realistic enough to accept (and publicly admit) that the Scottish people will almost certainly not go for it.
I don't agree with him but at least he is prepared to accept reality on this (so far at least).



[edit on 18-8-2007 by sminkeypinkey]

Yes Smikey but while a healthy rivalry is perfectly acceptable the footie issue is showing up the extent of the chip that some Scots have about the English and it's an ugly strain and far from healthy. Punching a ten year old boy for wearing an England shirt (it happened last year) and just refusing at any cost on supporting, cheering on or wishing well an English team smacks more of racism and it's causing a backlash amongst English people too. Again none of it good.

As for Alec Salmond?

I can at least warm to a guy who although he is an ex-banker & a career politician and personally prefers the idea of an independent Scotland is honest and realistic enough to accept (and publicly admit) that the Scottish people will almost certainly not go for it.
I don't agree with him but at least he is prepared to accept reality on this (so far at least).

One thing I will say about Alec Salmond before I leave my own comments, he is an opportunist, and no I did not vote for the snp (shocking I Know), at the recent Scottish Parliament election. My msp has done alot for the area where I live, so based on that reason, I voted labour, she still retained her seat anyways. (back on topic)

England is as much as colony to Scotland as much as Scotland is one to England. Are all countries within this union not a coloney to the United Kingdom. While Alec Salmond pushes his own agenda @ the Scottish Parliament, would I vote for and independant Scotland, that is a hard one to decide on, I would have to think really hard on that one before making my own decision.

Yes I have said in other threads, that England should have its own parliament, if it is oks for us scots to have one then, why not the English, maybe this will stop the antagonism between both scots and the english... (My grandfather would turn in his grave), after all he fought laong side his countrymen to keep this country united and free not to see it split apart.

If this referendum does go ahead I do not what the outcome is going to be, but it surley is gonna cause more friction between us all not only as members but as English and Scottish......

Knows we are more adult than this to let this get in the way of this, but people nationalisms shows through while debating such issues....

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
(My grandfather would turn in his grave), after all he fought laong side his countrymen to keep this country united and free not to see it split apart.

Indeed. It would be sad for a nation that has seen off the likes of Napoleon and Hitler to be defeated by a former economist and some of his short-sighted nationalist buddies.

Originally posted by Ste2652
What did Scotland and England do as separate countries that outshone what we have done together, as Britain? The answer, you'll find, is very little.

Not so sure about that. The Royal Navy was in existence long before 1707. The English had a growing overseas Empire, whereas Scottish attempts at colonisation failed miserably. Yes, Scotland established colonies, which all failed and almost bankrupted Scotland in the process.

Scotland constantly flirted with European powers to try an improve it's standing and warred against england often. Losing, most of the time. They supported the Spanish when they sent the Armada, which the Royal navy sent to the bottom of the sea.

The Union was politically convenient for the Scots at the time as they had tried to make it themselves, but failed, and as mentioned, ran out of cash as result. England would have gone on to exactly what we did under the guise of the British empire, with or without Scotland.

Originally posted by stumason
They supported the Spanish when they sent the Armada, which the Royal navy sent to the bottom of the sea.

No, actually, that was mostly to do with the weather. Only a few of the Spanish ships were actually sunk by the Royal Navy (three or four, I believe), by the fire ships. The nasty weather that we get on these islands did far more damage to the Spanish navy that England ever did.

Originally posted by stumason
England would have gone on to exactly what we did under the guise of the British empire, with or without Scotland.

Surely we're into the realms of 'if' here? Scotland did contribute in a major way (comparative to its size) to the British Empire and the Britain itself - militarily, intellectually, scientifically and economically (read up on some figures of the Scottish Enlightenment). An empire without Scotland would, I suspect, be far more different than you suggest.

I digress, anyway. Back on topic

I think it would be folly to discount the Scottish contribution to the history of these islands, come to that the Celtic contribution, there were plenty of Welsh and Irish too that went forth to help expand the Empire.

But there's the rub. When it comes to historical reflection about both the glories and evils of our imperialist past everyones happy to share the glory but the English seem to get firmly lumbered with the evils, to the point where some Celtic seperatists like to lump themselves in as victims of this oppression too. Just rememeber when you put the Mel Gibson version of British history on the DVD there were also just as many English children working up chimneys and satanic mills, men and woman starving and held in serfdom and generally being oppressed by the ruling elite as any one from elsewhere.
If you want to jump ship because it's no longer convenient say so but please don't romantacise the reasons and demonise a whole population in the process.

reply to post by ubermunche


I imagine you're referring to Braveheart... and whilst people should by all means enjoy it as a piece of entertainment, I can't stress how horribly flawed and biased it is as a piece of history (in fact, I insult history by calling it that).

Once again I encourage people to simply educate themselves on our history. British means exactly that - English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish (though the term 'Irish' does vary depending on what period you're talking about). All the positives and negatives of British imperialism can't be dropped at the door of any one nation - they all played their part, and should take credit/admit blame too.

Originally posted by Ste2652
No, actually, that was mostly to do with the weather. Only a few of the Spanish ships were actually sunk by the Royal Navy (three or four, I believe), by the fire ships. The nasty weather that we get on these islands did far more damage to the Spanish navy that England ever did.

I am aware of that, however, I didn't want to lecture on something not pertinent to the thread.

However, seeing as you brought it up, the fire ships attack claimed only 1 ship, whereas the initial Battle in the Armada sequence wrecked two ships. After the fire attack at Calais, the Spanish were engaged in battle again again, which cost them 11 ships and over 2000 battle dead. The English, on the contrary, lost only a few hundred men.

The Spanish then didn't just "succumb to the weather", as you suggested, but rather were pursued all the way to the Firth of Forth by the English fleet, forcing them to go North around Scotland as opposed to either the Spanish held low countries or Spain itself. By this time, the Spaniards were out of food and water. Not that many were lost directly as a result of the weather, as most were deliberately grounded so the survivors could seek shelter in Scotland.

Originally posted by Ste2652
Surely we're into the realms of 'if' here? Scotland did contribute in a major way (comparative to its size) to the British Empire and the Britain itself - militarily, intellectually, scientifically and economically (read up on some figures of the Scottish Enlightenment). An empire without Scotland would, I suspect, be far more different than you suggest.

I digress, anyway. Back on topic

Granted, Scottish contributions were great, but to say that England could have done nothing on it's own when it already had a burgeoning over seas Empire on it's own and had defeated the Superpower of the day is also rather silly.

Originally posted by Ste2652

So to boil it down... one of your key arguments for Scottish independence is because Scottish people tend to support Labour in general elections and you don't? Ergo, Scottish independence would serve your political motives. You'll forgive me for thinking that putting party before country is contemptible.

No as I said here…

2. It’s good for democracy if democratic representation is more direct.
There are longstanding, differences between the political orientations of Scottish and English people (in general); so why not allow these political identities to pursue their own destinies in parliaments independent of one another.

And here…

Are we really a stronger Britain if parking fines are the same in Edinburgh as in London? If criminals receive exactly the same punishments? Or Children copy the same curriculum?
Frankly from my point of view it’s the failed logic of Collectivisation (which was put to the ultimate test in Soviet Russia).

I too agree that putting party before country is contemptible, just that, the problem with you’re use of this argument is the argument for English independence goes way, way beyond simply party politics.
Obviously I dislike the fact that in spite of having more votes in England (which has 80% of the population) the Tories lost the last election. However as is self from thread
www.abovepolitics.com... I'm no die hard supporter of CamCon; nor was I one of that Count Popular (Michael Howard).

A problem with union in my eyes is that by binding established political divides together the union is bad for democracy; this is a necessary evil in any political system but not when that divide has both the will and resources to be a separate nation.
The argument for an independent England is one of democratic self determination for both Scotland and England, it’s one against collectivisation, and it’s one for ending the political obstacles that cause the U.K taxpayer to subsidise the socialism of the Scottish one. I’ve made that clear from the outset, and so it’s devisees of you to make it seem as though party before country is the significant issue.

For the record I used to support the Union on the grounds it was in our interests, but in actual fact there are no economies of scale because when you look at organisation like the NHS it is too big for its own good anyway (that’s why it’s managed in separate trusts).
A separate currency would be very good for the both Scotland and U.K and as for domestic issues like the sentencing of criminals a separate Scotland won’t make the blindest bit of difference to England (especially if the criminal can be exiled).

Furthermore many people think it’s good when the politician is a close to their electorates vote as possible (though that means more popularist domestic politics would be followed (higher sentences for paedophiles, murders ect). Also: whatever happens (that’s popular) in Scotland will achieve pressure for it to be followed through in the U.K (and visa versa).