The English want the same perks as the Scots

BBC News | TV poll backs Berwick border move

Residents in the Northumberland town of Berwick-upon-Tweed have “voted” in favour of becoming part of Scotland.

This really isn’t all that surprising, after all as one of the campaigners points out, the Scots receive far more tax payers money than the English. Gordon Brown has also now approved a plan to allow the Scottish Parliament to raise its own taxes and other powers.

“The Scots are getting more money than we are. I’m not saying that the Scots should not get what they get, but that we should get the same.”

The Scots get free health care for the elderly, free prescriptions, no student fees, better financed public services and more say in how their taxes are being spent. Ten years of Scottish devolution, and still no sign of anything similar in England, so the only chance these people have of getting the same perks, is to join Scotland.

Perhaps every city in England should petition to join Scotland, that way we’d be one country again, rather than the silly system that we have at present where all of the nations are virtually independent except England.

This is of course made worse by the fact that the English taxpayers subsidise the Scots so that the Scots in turn don’t have to pay as much tax. Perhaps this is one thing that Gordon Brown plans to change, whereby the Scottish Parliament can only spend taxes that it has raised itself. See how popular the Scottish Parliament is then and we’ll also see how long it keeps up things like free prescriptions and better public services.

Advertisements

37 responses to “The English want the same perks as the Scots

  1. Every so often you run across total nonsense and here we have it.

    Just for starters, you have 5 million Scots and about 55 million English. In every conceivable way the English have gotton the better end of the deal. What does the writer imagine kept the Brittish econmy afloat during the wonderful days of Margaret Thatcher? Scottish oil. Where does the revenue from Scottish oil currently flow? London.

    In the Act of Union, who benefited?The English. How were they supposed to build an empire with the potentially troublesome Scots on their back door? What was the second largest city of the Brittish Empire? Glasgow.

    Who gave the world the enlightenment movement? What about television?Telephone? Penecillan? Tarmac? The list is actually endless. Oh yes, we need the English, hmm , what for again?

    Just give us our oil and we will be on our way. Its funny how English people alway put the Irish down, yet their econmy is so vibrant. Apparently Ireland has no need of the English either. Denmark, Sweden , Norway and so many other small countries do just fine with the support of the English. I think the Scottish would do even better than these small countries given there rich history of achievment.

  2. appolus is a nadger jock bastard and the sooner we are shot of the miserable victim twats, the better.

  3. And there you have it, an educated reply from an Englishman I suppose 🙂 Quite sad really. Hmm. Did I mentioned that us Scots also invented the steam engine. Oh yes and that 60 Watt light Bulb, why yes that was Mr James Watt, another illustrous Scotsman. And then there was anasthetics,the postage stamp, the Bank of England,modern capitilism, fax machines, the first cloned animal. Come on now my English friends you can jump in anywhere? No? Ah well lets continue,breach loading rifle, refrigerators,sulphuric acid,soliton and the radar. There are more but I think I may have made my point.

    Now since my English friend did not jump in, let me give a few English inventions. Lets think, wait a minute I am still thinking, this is hard, hmmmm, ok, how about mushy peas?Yes, yes, I know, football hooligans.And jeelied eels. Didn’t your guys used to charge the Germans in the first world war with walking sticks?Tally Ho, up and at em boys. Anyway Tally, ye better watch or old Wille Wallace will be at yer back door again 🙂

    I actually think Tally will get his wishes sooner rather than later .

  4. Just for anyone interested in the actual facts, below are the numbers taken from the Herald

    Myth 1: Scots get more public cash than anyone else.
    The Truth: Public spending in Scotland is just £9631 per head, lower than the £10,271 for Northern Ireland and London’s average of £9748.

    Myth 2: English taxes pay for Scotland’s high spending.
    The Truth: Scotland brings in £9593 per head in tax – more than anywhere in the UK outside of London. Latest estimates show the tax take from Scotland is £49bn compared with total spending of £49.2bn …[1]

    Myth 3: Scots milk the welfare state
    The Truth: Latest figures show people living in North-East England claim on average £3284 per head. Northern Ireland £3256 and £3136 in Wales in state benefits. Scotland’s pension and benefit cost is £3086 per head.

    Myth 4: Scots enjoy better public services than the rest of the UK
    The Truth: The Welsh, not the Scots, get free prescriptions, while NHS waiting times in Scotland are broadly in line with England …

    Myth 5: State subsidy pays for Scots “big ticket” projects
    The Truth: London’s Crossrail project is to cost £16bn – seven and a half times the annual Scottish transport budget. The 2012 London Olympics means a loss of £9.3bn lottery funding for the rest of the UK.

    There are some better social provisions as I said, but as you can see from the relative tax revenues that is done with Scottish money.

  5. Hello Appolus, thank you for commenting. I am going to try and answer your points one by one if possible.

    Firstly what do you mean by Scottish Oil? In what way is it Scottish? The oil was discovered using English expertise and money and extracted using English expertise and money. The fact that the majority of the workforce is Scottish does not in anyway mean that the product is ‘Scottish’. Admittedly the oil fields are off the coast of Scotland, but all of them are 20+ miles off the coast. At what point in history did Scotland have a navy powerful enough to lay claim to such waters? The fact is without the English navy, those oil fields would be in Danish or Norwegian waters. Scotland should be thankful that the English are kind enough to be bring employment to Scotland by letting them dig up the oil.

    Secondly, the Act of Union benefited Scotland, certainly more so than England. And troublesome Scots is right, they were prepared to make alliances with anyone against England and did so at every opportunity. Fortunately they were brought into the Union before Hitler came to power. England is always made out to be the villain, fact is the Scots ethnically cleansed the true inhabitants of Scotland, the Picts and from then on constantly sought to conquer England. Almost being successful on several occasions, but lacking the manpower or resources to take complete control. Where I am sat typing this comment, was once burnt to the ground by marauding Scots, the women raped, the men put to the sword. The reason that there was such animosity towards the Scots was because of the constant Scottish raids across the border.

    England conquered Scotland, let’s be clear on that. Making them equals was the civilised thing to do and Scotland greatly benefitted from being part of the United Kingdom. To be fair England also gained, but Scotland was poor and had little to offer England, yet was accepted anyway. Today Scotland is desperate to be independent due to the oil, when that runs out or is superseded by some other fuel, they will no doubt be looking across the border once again with undisguised envy.

    Thirdly, I am not going to debate who invented what with you, but suffice to say that it was a clone of the English educational system that produced those inventors (no doubt reading books written by English authors) and the English Industrial Revolution that produced a market for said inventions. The English have been carrying the Scots for years, the things you mention were small recompense for all the money and effort sunk into Scotland.

    Finally, the English do not put down the Irish, we wish them well and wish that Scotland and Wales would join them. But don’t get too carried away with yourself, both Greece and Poland have better economies than Ireland. However with a similar land mass and population to Scotland, the Irish have done very well. Scotland however would be on an economic par with Malaysia. In fact, the only countries in Europe that could not measure up to Scotland are: Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia and Hungary. Incidentally, an independent England would still be the six richest country in the world, slipping just one place. The question should really be, why do the English need the Scots, or the Welsh for that matter?

    I also wouldn’t get too carried away with comparisons to the Scandinavian countries, all are famous for their strong work ethic and industrious culture. Also Norway and Sweden are 5-6 times the size of Scotland, and Sweden has twice the population of Scotland.

  6. Appolus, all those Scottish inventors make Scotland sound like a race of geniuses. A shame then that they didn’t invent something to say, beat the English? Like a rifle to replace the claymore? Some kind tactics or battlefield discipline, rather than running and screaming? That way, as Tally points out, perhaps they wouldn’t feel so hard done by and be such perennial victims.

    I also find it sad that so many Scots cling to ‘hero’ William Wallace, no doubt due to having watched Braveheart. Wallace won one battle, that’s right, one. His exploits are greatly exaggerated and a great many of them made up long after his death. Andrew Moray was a much more worthy hero, of course he was killed at Stirling Bridge and Wallace took all the credit for the battle and well, everything else. Had Moray lived, well, things today would probably have been very different in Scotland.

    The English never had anything to fear from Wallace, the man was a fairy tale.

    Facts, from the Herald? That wouldn’t be the Scottish Herald would it? Scotland’s leading daily newspaper? Hardly unbiased then. Incidentally there isn’t an ‘England’s leading daily newspaper.’

    Besides there is more to England than London. London has a high unemployment rate and 30%-40% of the population are foreign born residents. Although they have similar populations you can’t really compare Scotland to just one English city. What is the English average for your myths?

    You are right about the prescriptions, that is Wales. However the Scots pay just £3, as oppose to £6.90 for everyone else in, er, England. The Scottish Parliament has already said that they intend to make all prescriptions free.

  7. Thanks for the comment tally. I agree the sooner Scotland goes its own way the better, and Wales too for that matter. The longer that the situation we have at present continues, the more animosity felt by all sides. I say all sides, the Scots have of course always hated the English but now more and more English are returning that enmity.

    The English are sick of hearing about the Scottish and Welsh parliaments, when denied their own, sick of the constant Scottish and Welsh flag waving, and their banging on about their separate identity, when again denied the same.

    At present the English are second class citizens in the nation they founded.

  8. Charlie is a typical Englishman in many ways. Loud noises but no actual education to back it up. Lets take the Oil, it is clearly in Scottish waters and it was American money that found and drilled there, not English, they just reaped the tax revenue, more stolen money.

    Secondly, Scotland has been an Independent nation from 843. This was briefly interupted in 1296 by old Longshanks and his sexually confused son. This lasted until 1314 when the English were completely routed and sent running, only to try one more time and be beaten again then get caught up in the 100 year war.

    Of course you do not want to talk about inventions Charlie, like I said before, mushy peas and concentration camps are not much to shout about.(Boer war)

    As for English education, it did not exist until Scotland invented it(do yourself a favour and google this)

    Yes, you English have made fun of the Irish for a long time, hence all the Irish jokes. Well I think it is the Irish who are laughing now, both sides of the border, North and South.

    Finally you claim that the English would still be the sixth richest country in the world if you had your own independence. Hmmm, if you gave back all the money that you stole over the centuries from India and Africa and every corner of the globe(that is why nobody likes you by the way) then you would not be the sixth richest but you would be in debt. Then you would have to look North to you Northen geniuses to once again help you out. I would not bank on them helping you this time.

    Hey Charlie, didnt I see you at Wembly? Noooooo. where do all the Englishmen go when the Scots come down?

  9. Thanks again appolus. It is ironic that you criticise my education, then tell me to ‘Google’ for information. Again I ask how is 20 miles offshore Scottish waters? How did Scotland attain such wide maritime boundaries? Through English military might. Had England not conquered Scotland, then Norway, Sweden, Denmark or even France would have. Scotland was quite literally a sitting duck for much of the past millennia.

    843? At that time the Picts lived in Scotland, not the Scots. You forgot to mention that Scotland was conquered (again) in 1651.

    Inventions? Fine you seem intent to draw me into this pointless debate, so be it. Firstly Thomas Edison invented the light bulb as everyone knows, right? Wrong that was Joseph Wilson Swan, an Englishman. An Englishman also invented the first incandescent light. Creating a 60 watt bulb is hardly a momentous achievement, besides many of Watts claims were dubious to say the least. The steam engine (locomotive) was invented by Robert Stephenson (English), as anyone with even a cursory knowledge of engineering would know. If you meant an engine powered by steam, well that goes back to the Romans, but Thomas Savery patented the first 1698, Thomas Newcomen was the first to actually create a practical and useful one. Both of course, were English.

    Anesthetics have been around far longer than Scotland. Did you mean Henry Hill Hickman? What about Joseph Priestley, the man who discovered oxygen gas? Both of course English. The man who discovered laughing gas, Sir Humphry Davy? Who also invented the Davy Lamp. Did you mean Dr. Scott and ether? Then you missed a lesson, William Thomas Green Morton, an American, was the first to use ether as an anesthetic.

    Postage stamp? This came about due to Sir Rowland Hill’s (English) reforms of the postal service and if I recall the first designs were by an Irish man.

    Capitalism? That has been around for centuries, but I assume that you mean David Hume and Adam Smith? They of course got their ideas and inspiration from Mr John Locke, an Englishman.

    Sulpuric Acid was discovered by Jabir ibn Hayyan, over a thousand years ago.

    Telephone? Wasn’t that Elisha Gray?

    Tarmac was invented by Edgar Purnell Hooley, he was Welsh.

    As for English inventions or discoveries….

    Gravity, Isaac Newton.

    Clockwork Radio, Trevor Bayliss.

    The computer/analytical engine, Charles Babbage. The first real computer, Alan Turing. Colossus one of the greatest computers ever built, Tommy Flowers. Oh and of course the Web, Tim Berners Lee.

    The Diesel Engine, Herbert Stuart. The internal combustion engine, Sam Brown.

    The sewing machine, caterpillar track, microscope, barometer, seismograph, vacuum cleaner, steel (mass production of), vaccination (Jenner), infrared radiation, antiseptic (Lister), the tank, Electromagnet, seatbelt, VTOL aircraft, DNA, hovercraft, dreadnought battleships, submarine, electric generator, micrometer, theory of evolution (Darwin), lifeboat, the jet engine (frank whittle), in fact it would probably be easier to list what wasn’t invented/discovered by an Englishman. England was at the forefront of everything from the time of the Industrial revolution until after the second world war.

    As for reparations, spoken like a true victim nation by the way. Sure, why not. Right after we get our cheque from the Italians for the Roman conquest and subsequent centuries of enslavement and pillaging, our cheque from Norway, Sweden and Denmark for the Viking raids, damage and pillaging. A cheque from the Germans for the damage wrought by the Saxons, and of course a cheque from the French for the Norman conquest and subjugation. After that, and of course when we see the USA pay the Indians for stealing their lands and almost wiping them out and Africa for slavery, we’ll be there, cheque book in hand.

    Incidentally those that gained the most from the British Empire were the Scots, Irish and Welsh. Of the four home nations they were by far the biggest migrants to the colonies.

    As for hated, maybe, but at least the rest of the world knows (and fears England). Few have even heard of Scotland, which is why they always refer to Britain as England!

  10. Charlie , Charlie poor Charlie. How is one to answer such revisionist nonsense? In truth, it cannot be answered or indulged. And as for people fearing England, poor Charlie, no one fears England my friend, least of all the Scots.

    Can I tell you a secret Charlie? I do not dislike the English 🙂 I lived there for almost two years(London) Had many friends there. You never know, if we had met in a pub at the time, I might have bought you a beer, for , being English, you would never have bought me one 🙂

  11. appolus said:

    “Charlie , Charlie poor Charlie. How is one to answer such revisionist nonsense? In truth, it cannot be answered or indulged.”

    I assume by that you are admitting that you were mislead by Scottish propaganda? The fact is, most of mankind’s greatest inventions over the past few centuries were by Englishmen.

    appolus said:

    “You never know, if we had met in a pub at the time, I might have bought you a beer, for , being English, you would never have bought me one 🙂 “

    Probably not, after all I am already paying for your prescriptions, your children’s tuition fees etc.

    I am sure that you did have many friends, and that is the sad thing. The English do have a soft spot for the Welsh, Scots and the Irish, and always have. Sure there are jokes and stereotypes but most English either have Scottish, Welsh or Irish friends or relatives, or both. Much as our Celtic brothers may hate it, we are cut from the same cloth. And that is the sad part, this fondness is not reciprocated.

    I remember the whole of England in 1994 during the World Cup, cheering on the Ireland team, England didn’t make it, but Ireland (or Scotland, or Wales) getting through is the next best thing for the English. Ray Houghton’s goal produced as big a roar in the pub as any England goal would have. Yet when England get through and none of the others do (which to be honest is most of the time), who do they cheer on? Anyone who happens to be playing England. Frankly that is just sad.

    This inexplainable animosity is why the English have had enough and want to get rid. We are tired of having our respect and esteem thrown back in our faces, whilst you help yourselves to our wallets.

  12. Now listen Charlie, first of all I have lived in America for 18 years so you dont pay my way 🙂 But if you would like to send me a check over feel free for as you know, the Scots would never look a gift horse in the mouth, we would probably punch it 🙂

    Let me explain this to you buddy, if I had several English friends(and one of my best friends over here is a big Londoner) then obvioulsy that is recipricol. I like them, they like me.

    I have found that the people who do not like each other are the people who have never met. The Englisman who has never been to Scotland and the Scotsman who has never been to England. It is based on ignorance and fear from both sides. And you must remember that there has been a thousand years of fighting and atrocities on both sides. That is not gonna clear up over night round a camp fire singing God save the Queen.

    I think you would probably agree that Independance would be the answer? Then the English would not have to worrry that the Scots are getting more than their fair share. Maybe they will sink, maybe they will swim, but hey, if they never try it they would never know.

  13. Mel the indifferent

    “To be fair England also gained, but Scotland was poor and had little to offer England, yet was accepted anyway.”

    I’ll let Michael Parenti answer that: “One does not go to poor places for self-enrichment. ”

    Nobody takes the trouble of invading another country if that country is known to possess no resources.

    “England conquered Scotland, let’s be clear on that. Making them equals was the civilised thing to do and Scotland greatly benefitted from being part of the United Kingdom.”

    I find it hard to believe that you would beat a man down to the floor with the intent of proving your goodwill by giving him a hand up when a simple handshake would have sufficed to begin with? 😛

    I know a Canadian (and a brown one at that =p) has no business in a quarrel between an Englishman and Scotsman, but I couldn’t resist 😛

  14. Mel the indifferent said:

    “Nobody takes the trouble of invading another country if that country is known to possess no resources.”

    Unfortunately the Scots gave us very little choice. Aside from the frequent raping and pillaging carried out by the marauding Scots, they were also making alliances with all our enemies, (Auld Alliance), at every possible opportunity.

    England had a choice, be conquered or conquer Scotland. It simply wasn’t safe to have an enemy at our back door. Friendship was never an option, although it was offered enough times, the Scots wanted more.

    Any respect from the Scots was grudgingly given, beating them was the only way to get any. I cannot understate the hate that was felt north of the border for the English. They made alliances with anyone and everyone that they thought might give us a beating, and they still do where football is concerned.

    In the end the question of who conquered who is debatable. England ended up with a Scottish Monarch, and now has a Scottish PM and cabinet. Blair was also a Scot.

  15. Charlie, why dont you tell us all, with your brilliant English education, when exactly was Scotland conquered by England? Talk about revisionist nonsense? Well, maybe Charlie actually believes in fairies at the bottom of his garden. In 1602 a Scottish King came and ruled over the English, because they came and asked us too, James v1 reluctantly agreed to this request from a kingless people. And there you have it Charlie.

    At the danger of playing into your obvious lack of education 🙂 Can you enlighten us to the time and date and name of the battle in which England conquered Scotland? Perhaps another acid tablet would help with the details? :)…………….Frank

  16. appolus said:

    “Charlie, why dont you tell us all, with your brilliant English education, when exactly was Scotland conquered by England? Talk about revisionist nonsense?”

    I take it by that you’re implying that Scotland was never conquered by England? You’ve been away from your homeland too long appolus, you’ve forgotten your own history.

    Most of the hate against England is from the two Scottish Wars of Independence, how can one fight for independence if you’ve never been conquered?

    Scotland was first conquered by the English in 1296, then again in 1332. Technically you could also count 1746 when the Scots were defeated at Culloden.

    At the danger of playing into your obvious lack of education

    This from the man that thought that the light bulb and the steam engine were invented by Scots! Who was also unaware that David Hume and Adam Smith based their ideas on John Locke’s. And that tried to credit the invention of Tarmac to a Scot, when it was a Welshman!

    You also claimed that the English had never invented anything, whilst typing at your computer (an English invention) and using HTML (an English invention). Talk about irony!

    Well, maybe Charlie actually believes in fairies at the bottom of his garden.

    I’ll have you know there are no Scots at the bottom of my garden! 🙂

  17. Now , now, Charlie my old friend. I am assuming that you know the difference between a battle and actually conquering a country? The Scots have never been conquered by anyone, not the Romans, nor the southeners, now that is a fact. And of course you know all about William Wallace and how you guys were hiding behind your wives skirts as he marched south, routing the English as he went. Mr longshanks was quite distressed. Of coure is you read back you will notice that I never claimed that Watt invented the light bulb, just the power that pulsed through it 🙂 Not quite sure why you keep trying to say that tarmac was invented by a welshman, when most folk(people who have not had an English education) know that it was John Loudon McAdam (hence the name tarmacadam later shortened to tarmac. Johnny boy was born in Ayr.

    I would suggest to all that they read “How the Scots invented the world,” it is an excellent read and teaches uneducated Englishmen how the enlightenment movement changed the whole world. Alos , if you would like to check out the Arbroath Declaration, written to the Pope in the time of Robert the Bruce(the time Charlie boy claims that there were Englishmen in Scotland 🙂 you will see where the Americans got there ideas of independence from a tyrant King. George Washigton also said that if all else failed (which of course it did not) then he would fall back to Valley Forge, surround himslelf with scotsman, who, while there was still bulletes in their guns were never afraid to shoot an Englishman.

    Ah the glory of history that celebrates the good guys and rightly condemns the Englishman to the dustbin of tryrany. Watch out Charlie, someday there may be Scotsman at the bottom of your garden, they might be advancing on your castle to once again rout the villians of history. By the way, if you would like, I could sponser you and you could become an honerary Scotsman, not the same as being an actual Scotsman I know, but it would be better than just being English. Love ya Charlie!!!!!!!

  18. Mel the indifferent

    Charlie mon ami, thou art truly a relic. I honestly imagine you to be a 150 year old fossilized man typing out of his furnace heated parlour with a patriotic fervor that is anachronistic and comical to behold 😀

    Appolus, I can understand what you must be going through. Ol Charlie believes that the British Raj was the best thing that happened to India since Chapatis. He’s oblivious to the fact that there is no ideological difference between J.S Mill’s apology for Brit imperialism and Bush’s defense for the Iraq war (the irony here being that Mill was Scottish). Imperialists always pretend that they are defending themselves. They always pretend that their actions are benevolent/divinely sanctioned and that they are merely rescuing the ‘other’ from their own savagery.

    Appolus, Charlie does mention that the Scotts were forming offensive treaties against the Brits, and that this serves as a legitimate casus beli against the former. How to do respond to this allegation?

    “I could sponser you and you could become an honerary Scotsman, not the same as being an actual Scotsman I know, ”

    Take him up on his offer Charlie, that increase the population of English loving Scots to the grand total of: 2

    😀

  19. Dear God, no wonder you Scots want independence, that way you can push your own version of history to your kids.

    Macadamisation – was not Tarmac, that followed later and was invented and patented by Edgar Purnell Hooley 75 years after the death of McAdam. He gives part of his name to it because that is what was used before using tar (macadamisation), Pooley even called his company Tar Macadam. Clearly his giving too much credit to a Scot went to all of your heads and you gave him sole credit for an invention 75 years after he died!

    The book’s full title is “How the Scots invented the world – Or at least took all the credit for it.”

    You mean the same Declaration of Arbroath that is:

    “Declaration of Arbroath was a declaration of Scottish independence”

    ? Why would you Scots need a declaration of independence if you were not conquered? Not to mention the reason that you also fought not one but two wars of independence! What was William Wallace fighting for again? How was it that the English were garrisoned in Scotland in the first place if you were not conquered? Revisionist nonsense is the phrase that you used, I believe it fits perfectly. Just because Jock McTavish in a shack in the Highlands still thought Scotland was independent, doesn’t mean it was. You were paying taxes to an English King.

    No wonder Scotland is in trouble, you all seem to stick to a historical period where Scotland was an unconquered bastion of freedom, which in reality never existed.

    “And of course you know all about William Wallace and how you guys were hiding behind your wives skirts as he marched south, routing the English as he went”

    What are you talking about? William Wallace fought two battles against the English, both inside Scotland. He was present at one battle, which the true Scottish hero, Andrew Murray won and I have to concede brilliantly. Then Wallace lost the other one in spectacular style against an army only half the size of the first one.

    After that he spent the next seven years hiding behind his mothers skirts, before being handed over to the English, who of course had captured Scotland.

    You seem be so gullible, probably like most Scots, to believe all the legends of William Wallace, probably from watching Braveheart!  The Declaration of Arbroath was written years later, by a monk and all the fighting against the English was done by Andrew Murray. The legend of Wallace is just folklore, fairy stories and a load of revisionist nonsense!

    As for Robert the Bruce:

    “In August 1296 Bruce and his father swore fealty to Edward I of England at Berwick-upon-Tweed, but in breach of this oath, which had been renewed at Carlisle, the younger Robert joined in the Scottish revolt against King Edward in the following year”

    Revolt, against English rule! Who was Robert the Bruce trying to kick out of Scotland if not the English? And why would he be swearing allegiance to an English King if Scotland were not conquered?

    The Scots seem to be changing history to protect their fragile pride. Yet it is contradictory, you can’t have heroes such as Wallace, Murray and Robert the Bruce if they weren’t fighting oppression from English conquerors. Yet you seem OK with this?

    “Watch out Charlie, someday there may be Scotsman at the bottom of your garden, they might be advancing on your castle to once again rout the villians of history.”

    If the English are villains then the Scots are our accomplices! There are Scots all over the world, thanks to the British Empire. Britain of course includes Scotland.

    Scotland only ever had one man capable of routing the English, Andrew Murray and Scotland not only wasted him, but also forgot him and gave all the credit for his deeds to William come lately Wallace. All over Scotland there are many statues to William Wallace but there is not one statue of Andrew Murray.

  20. Mel the indifferent said,

    “Ol Charlie believes that the British Raj was the best thing that happened to India since Chapatis.”

    I didn’t say that, nor am I saying that the British Empire was either benevolent nor run completely for the benefit of India. There are good points and bad points about the British Empire, my point is that the British (amazing how the Scots can distance themselves from the British Empire that they were a part of and blame it all on those bloody, tyrannical English!) have nothing to apologise for, and it was certainly far better than most Empires before it, contemporary to it and since.

    It is also wrong to assume that had Britain never ventured round Cape Horn, that India would be some Utopian society, ruled Indians to the benefit of Indians. That certainly wasn’t what was in place before the British arrived and with the decline of the Mughal Empire, India was ripe for conquest by far nastier neighbours.

  21. Mel the indifferent

    Regardless of how India may have turned out, that gave the Brits no right to invade and plunder it. Saying things like “it would have been invaded anyway so better us then the others” is a shallow and intellectually bankrupt argument because it does not give Britain the moral high ground to invade and plunder. India was not a threat to British national security…

    Furthermore, India has been subjected to raids throughout its history, and Nadir’s exploits fit into that pattern. Very few outsiders come into India to establish a permanent empire. India may perhaps have lost some territory to such raiders, but it would be nowhere close to the level of poverty that it is today.

    The model that I discussed isn’t just some random theory and it certainly doesn’t defy reason, but confirms a lot of history. There is very little difference between American style Neo imperialism in Latin America and British Imperialism. Both countries have tampered and restructured the economies of their colonies to drain them of their capital. This is called forced underdevelopment and it’s effects are a lot more long term than random raids carried out by Vikings and others. Unless you can appreciate this difference, it is no point continuing this debate. That you keep comparing said random booty raids to the center periphery model is testament to your ignorance. I could explain the PPT curve from economic theory but I cannot descend into many details since you lack fundamental knowledge of the social sciences. I will not waste my time justifying a model to a man who is stubbornly arguing only for the sake of arguing when the model has been recognized by virtually all mainstream academics in the West. Compare the tampering of the economies of Guatemala, El Salvador and Iraq to India and you will see some striking parallels. This is no coincidence.

    Your claim that Britain was manufacturing textiles more efficiently than India was? It would interest you to know that Britain banned Indian textiles because they were threatening the former’s fledgling economy. Hardly a surprise then that US Neo liberals are all for removing ‘barriers to trade’ from the third world but are surprisingly silent when the US holds it’s own protective tariffs in place. Britain has taught the US well.

  22. Mel the indifferent

    last para should read “You claim that…”

    It’s 2:30 am here, so excuse the typos =p

  23. Mel the indifferent said:

    “Regardless of how India may have turned out, that gave the Brits no right to invade and plunder it. Saying things like “it would have been invaded anyway so better us then the others” is a shallow and intellectually bankrupt argument because it does not give Britain the moral high ground to invade and plunder. India was not a threat to British national security…”

    I don’t believe that anyone, either then or now has ever claimed that India was a threat to Britain’s security, but had the French conquered India, then they may have been.

    Your argument does not hold water either. You claim that Britain invaded India, even though this is not true, and I am sure you know it is not true but it is better to massage the Indian ego and claim that Britain was some evil aggressor that stole Indian prosperity hundreds of years ago, than to acknowledge the fact that India willingly entered into the British Empire. If that was not conducive to a perfect society where all Indians were equal, then tough luck, but that was never the intention of either the British nor those that ruled India. There was an Indian class system long before the British arrived, that not only ensured poverty, but that promoted it.

    “but it would be nowhere close to the level of poverty that it is today.”

    India is not poor. By many estimates it is already richer than Britain. If that wealth is not being distributed fairly, well after 60 years of independence you can only really blame India.

    The British did not arrive in a huge fleet with an army intent on invasion, as you seem to make out. It was British traders that arrived in India, not soldiers. As I said before the Mughal Emperor invited the British, gave them trading rights, in his favour, and milked British business for what he could. He played nations off against each other for the best possible deal and I notice that you have yet to criticise that?

    When his empire was falling around about his ears he was fairly begging for British help, and when British financial interests were at stake and when India could not govern itself, Britain kindly stepped in, and helped the Indians out at a time when most other nations would have buggered them. The average life expectancy in India was just 21 years when the British arrived, when they left it had increased to 32.

    As I keep having to repeat, most of the princely states joined Britain voluntarily. If your ancestors did not have a system of government that was fair and democratic, then you only have your ancestors to blame. You cannot blame the British for the poor decisions that your ancestors made. This is of course another point, you claim that Indian was beggared, not true. Many Indians made a lot of money out of the British being in India, after all, and another fact that it seems convenient for you to forget is that, just 20,000 Britons were in India during the time of the Raj, if the 200 million Indians really wanted them out, they could have done so easily. Britain was just skimming off the top, the Indian elite were the ones making the real money. What do think paid for Mahatma Gandhi’s education? If your ancestors were oppressed, it was most likely by their fellow countrymen.

    As for taking the moral high ground, you can hardly blame British people for not seeing Indians as entirely equal now can you? After all when the British arrived Sati was commonplace, not to mention female infanticide. If Georgian and Victorian Britain did not view Indians as a decent and ethical society when they practiced such barbaric acts as forcing widows to burn themselves alive on their husband’s funeral pyre (8,000 women in Bengal alone in 12 years) and dashed out the brains of newborn girls because they were too much bother to raise, can you seriously hold it against them? As Charles Spurgeon said:

    “If my religion consisted of bestiality, infanticide and murder, I should have no right to it unless I was prepared to be hanged.”

    Such barbaric practices played right into the hands of the evangelical nut jobs, who were advocating genocide. Fortunately however, with Britain being a civilised and decent nation, these nut jobs were ignored.

    I find Sati and female infanticide repugnant, so I can hardly blame my forebears for believing that the Indians weren’t quite the intellectual equals of Britons.

    Not to mention the blatant massacre of innocent women and children during the Indian Mutiny. I am sure that those in Britain who were thinking such things as ‘those poor Hindoos and Musselmen, what right have we to rule them…’ promptly changed their minds when hearing what the poor Indians were capable of.

    If one behaves in an inhuman fashion, one cannot really complain when treated like a savage.

    “Very few outsiders come into India to establish a permanent empire.”

    You mean apart from the Persians, the Macedonians, Pahlavas, Sassanids, The White Huns, Turks, Mughals and the British? Each conqueror further added to the Indian culture, it wouldn’t be what it is today without each one of those invaders.

    “Your claim that Britain was manufacturing textiles more efficiently than India was?”

    Of course it was. Britain had weaving machinery, the Indian model was of local village weavers. Britain could mass produce its textiles, India’s model was outdated and inefficient. 

    One of the problems Britain had in India was free trade meant that Indians had to compete with tough European competitors, when they were unable to do so.

    “I could explain the PPT curve from economic theory but I cannot descend into many details since you lack fundamental knowledge of the social sciences. I will not waste my time justifying a model to a man who is stubbornly arguing only for the sake of arguing when the model has been recognized by virtually all mainstream academics in the West.”

    Perhaps among liberal apologists, as bashing Britain and anything that is associated with it appears to be in vogue at present. As I said it defies reason. If it were Britain’s intent to under develop India, then Britain was not very successful at it. After all in the early 20th century, India was one of the richest nations on earth. Besides Britain only received about 1% of India’s wealth each year, surely it would have sped along this master plan of underdevelopment to take more? Bleed it dry?

    Also surely if the intention is to rape a nation; the richer the nation and the more wealth that it produces the better, as there will be more to reap? It would not be sensible to make the nation poorer, as that means there is less to take.

    “Hardly a surprise then that US Neo liberals are all for removing ‘barriers to trade’ from the third world but are surprisingly silent when the US holds it’s own protective tariffs in place. Britain has taught the US well.”

    Not true, Britain was the original leader in free trade, at a time when the US sheltered its infant industries behind high tariff walls. Something that it is still doing.

    “the Brits no right to invade and plunder it”

    This I think is the root of the problem with the former colonies and the third world. The Anglo Saxons had no right to invade England and supplant the Britons, the Scots had no right to conquer Scotland and wipe out the Picts, but they did. It’s history. Retrospective thinking, censure, and ‘if only’s’, simply lead to stagnation, bitterness and hate. Europe was ravaged during WWII far worse than any colony had been by an imperialist power, yet Europe put itself back together and soldiered on. The third world is still sat on its backside complaining of hardships from decades ago, and wondering why it has been left behind.

  24. Mel the indifferent

    “In 1600, when the East India Company was founded, Britain was generating 1.8% of the world’s GDP, while India was producing 22.5%. By 1870, at the peak of the Raj, Britain was generating 9.1%, while India had been reduced for the first time to the epitome of a Third World nation, a symbol across the globe of famine, poverty and deprivation.”

    http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1649060_1649046_1649026,00.html

    “Your argument does not hold water either. You claim that Britain invaded India, even though this is not true, and I am sure you know it is not true but it is better to massage the Indian ego and claim that Britain was some evil aggressor that stole Indian prosperity hundreds of years ago, than to acknowledge the fact that India willingly entered into the British Empire.”

    Charlie, for the love of God, abandon these Victorian fantasies and step into the 21st century. This debate began with some promise in the other thread, but is rapidly descending into a tedious excercise of chest thumping from your side. Having being bested on the economic front you have now resorted to justifying British Imperialism by painting it as a benevolent conquest where the states of India voluntarily gave up their sovereignty/autonomy to surrender their national will to a foreign monarchy. Even a first year Political Science student at York University would laugh at your absurd position. The Indian rulers did not simply roll over and play dead as you imagine, they resisted, and Britain’s domination was ensured by it’s millitary conquests and not its integrity. The two chief battles of conquest that marked the beggining of the British Raj were the Battle of Plassey (1757) and the Battle of Buxar (1764). This ensured the domination of North India, while South India was conqured in two wars of conquest, the Anglo-Mysore wars (two of them,1766–1799) and the Anglo-Maratha wars (1772–1818).

    “While the Battle of Plassey secured a foothold for the British East India Company in the rich province of Bengal, the Battle of Buxar is really the battle that made them the dominant force in India.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Buxar

    After these wars of conquest, the major emperors were taken out, and in their wake, a few soveriegn pricely states emerged. Some of these were conqured by stealth (the so called peacefull conquest that you allude to) while the other half were conqured millitarily. The ones conquered millitarily were

    “Northwest Provinces (comprising Rohilkhand, Gorakhpur, and the Doab) (1801), Delhi (1803), and Sindh (1843). Punjab, Northwest Frontier Province, and Kashmir, were annexed after the Anglo-Sikh Wars in 1849; however, Kashmir was immediately sold under the Treaty of Amritsar (1850) to the Dogra Dynasty of Jammu, and thereby became a princely state. In 1854 Berar was annexed, and the state of Oudh two years later.[8]”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj

    Now lets discuss the “peacefull conquests.” This was accomplished using the “subsidiary alliance” policy. This alliance was sold by the Brits to the Indigenous rulers on the grounds of protecting them from their ‘enemies’ (i.e other soveriegn states). This is were the classical Divide and Conquer strategy comes into play. What do the Rulers have to offer the self sacrificing brits in compensation?

    1a) Any Indian Ruler accepting subsidiary Alliance with Britishers had to keep British Army within their Territory and was supossed to pay for it’s maintainance.

    b) In lieu of the payments, sometimes of the ruler’s territory was ceeded to Britishers.

    c) The rulers accepting it were forced to keep a British official at their court called “Resident at his Court”.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiary_alliance

    So you can see Charlie ol boy that the Brits requried the rulers to surrender absolutely all of their sovereignity and effectively ruled them as puppeteers. Let’s also be realistic, these Rulers petty and currupt as the were, knew perfectly well that they would share the same fate as their northern brethren if they didn’t sign the dotted line.

    I think that about dismantles your fantasy about the benevolent conquest of India.

    You also made certain other claims in your Gospel of possitive imperialism pertaining to agriculture, medicine and infrasturcture, to which I would like to draw your attention here:”http://india_resource.tripod.com/colonial.html”

    And please don’t start with the economic aspect of imperialism again, I really don’t have to elaborate economic theories for man who has no inclination to change his viewpoint one way or another.

  25. Mel the indifferent

    meh typo: “I really don’t have time to elaborate…”

  26. Thanks again Mel the indifferent, I will try and respond to your points later today, and I apologise again for your comments being taken as spam. Not sure why that is happening.

    The only thing that I will say now is that taking sites such as:

    http://india_resource.tripod.com/colonial.html

    As gospel and as carrying wholly accurate information is injudicious, as anyone can set up a free site on http://www.tripod.lycos.com/ and post whatever information they wish.

    Admittedly they have posted references, but not having read any of those books I have no idea whether what they have said bears any relevance to them.

  27. Hey Mel….You can quote all the reference material that you want, Charlie boy will not accept it. You get the same nonsence here in the States from people who say that the black people were actually fortunate to be dragged here because two hundred and fifty years later, (after imperial domination) Africa is in a mess. Not quite sure what to do with that mentality. Yet, arrogance has a constant ability to ignore facts, whether that is American arrogance or English arrogance. I am quite sure the Romans had their own rose tinted glasses in which to review their own history. The English corriculum in Scotland never mentioned and English agression whatso-ever, and certainly no mention of Highland clearances. Oh thats right , the highland clearance was a gift from the English. In the county of Sutherland, the daughter of the last Earl married an English nobleman, the Marquis of Stafford, owner of a very large estate in England. In the marriage, he obtained the largest estate in Scotland. In the first twenty years of the 19th century, his representatives or “factors” removed thousands of people from their ancestral homes. They burned the homes, furnishings and all. They then either shipped them off to America or Australia, or moved them to miserable dwellings along the shore. They were replaced by a few shepherds. Perhaps that was what Charlie was alluding to when he said that the English helped the Scots move around the world, thanks Charlie for all those one way tickets to Australia and America, such a generous and benevolent spirit. …………….Frank

  28. appolus,

    Not true, yet again. The Highland clearances were because the treasonous Highlanders had tried to put an Italian on the throne of Britain.

    After the second uprising by the Highlanders the government of Great Britain (of which Scotland was a part!) decided that they could not be trusted, and set about dismantling the clan system.

    This wasn’t the English against the Scots, but normal sensible and hardworking people against a war mongering, bloodthirsty rabble that believed they were a law unto themselves.

    Incidentally the first uprising was supported by the French, Britain’s arch enemy. The second by Spain. The Highlanders were supporting first a French invasion and then a Spanish!

    Traitors!

    “Yet, arrogance has a constant ability to ignore facts, whether that is American arrogance or English arrogance.”

    Oh dear, the English are the bad guys again! The Scots of course were on the periphery doing their best to stop the evil English I am sure. If the English were so bad, why did the Scots join the Union? Also why did Scotland make slavery illegal six years after England? It took them until 1778!

    “I am quite sure the Romans had their own rose tinted glasses in which to review their own history.”

    If anyone is seeing things through rose tinted glasses it is the Scots, making out they had no part in the Empire, no part in slavery, that it was a land of oppressed heroes that was never conquered! I am sure that the Indians didn’t differentiate between their English and Scottish masters.

  29. Mel the indifferent,

    “In 1600, when the East India Company was founded, Britain was generating 1.8% of the world’s GDP, while India was producing 22.5%. By 1870, at the peak of the Raj, Britain was generating 9.1%, while India had been reduced for the first time to the epitome of a Third World nation, a symbol across the globe of famine, poverty and deprivation.”

    Firstly those figures are not too far off figures that I have seen to I won’t disagree with you there. However you are quoting them out of context. 1600 is a full 150 years before the anarchy that I mentioned. A lot can, and did happen in that time, including the invasion by Nader Shah and the sacking (and massacre) of Delhi, the Durrani Empire also took huge chunks out of India, and took Delhi again. Of course by 1870, almost 3 centuries later India wasn’t the powerhouse it was, that was apparent in 1700 and this is what happens when civilisations collapse.

    If the poverty was so bad under the British, if they were so deprived, how is that so many lived longer than ever before and also were better educated than ever before? You see, the two just don’t go together.

    “The two chief battles of conquest that marked the beggining of the British Raj were the Battle of Plassey (1757) and the Battle of Buxar (1764).”

    Secondly you are also taking the battles as proof of conquest without taking into account the historical context. That is akin to calling the Normandy landings a UK/US/Canadian invasion of mainland Europe.

    During the anarchy that I mentioned earlier the East India Company was forced to employ soldiers to defend its territory and its assets. These soldiers by the way, were locals. Many of these were Telugu peasants and Kunbis who were offered much better employment than they would have been able to get in the caste system. The anarchy in India had given the East India Company, which you seem to forget was a company, it was not run by the Government of Britain, a reason for an army and an excuse to use it. Would it be any different today if a company like Haliburton were in a similar situation?

    Anyway it was the French that took the initiative and tried to gain more territory, they attacked the British in India, at the same time they were aiding the Highlanders in their uprising back in Scotland. If you wanted to know what inspired English Imperialism, you only need to look as far as our two closest neighbours, and bitter enemies. It was sink or swim, Britain swam, India sank.

    Britain fought France across the globe for decades. I am not going to discuss all the battles you mention in detail, but if you look yourself at what led up to them, rather than taking them in isolation, then you’d better understand them, the circumstances surrounding them and the reasoning behind them. Don’t just assume that it was British oppression, just because that is what you’d like to believe. 

    Incidentally the British Raj did not begin until 1858. The East India Company was not the British Raj. As a little aside, had the sepoys not massacred all those British women and children, India may well have been independent, or at least a civil war strewn mess, without there ever having been a British Raj. Those massacres kicked up such ill feeling in Britain that it almost made the East India Company seem like the good guys.

    Regarding the economy, I wouldn’t say I had been bested,  you have yet to explain why Britain taking about 1% of India wealth per year beggared India. Clearly Britain was not draining India, as you claim and you have provided no evidence for your assertion. Pointing out theories is all well and good, but when the facts don’t fit, it is time to find another theory.

    As for changing my mind, you haven’t a chance. I have studied the British Empire in great detail. I have weighed up the evidence (not the hearsay or propaganda that seems to pervade the Internet on the subject), and formed my opinion of the British Empire.

    Incidentally, before doing so, I too was of the opinion that the British Empire was an evil empire, that brought only misery and hardship to the world. Due in part no doubt to my education (or lack thereof) and the media, particularly television and film, which, as it is normally US based, appeared to delight in bashing Brits. The US was always the fiercest critic of the British Empire, doing everything that it could to thwart it, and finally ending it, all whilst constructing their own Empire. All US publications are critical of the British Empire, yet few, if any, ever mention the Philippine Revolution, how Hawaii was conquered and all of their own skeletons.

    You said before that Britain taught the US well, poppycock. The US managed to build an Empire without even their own people being aware of it, have influenced the world and opinion in way that Britain could never have done. They made Britain look like amateurs. 

  30. I noticed that today Michael Martin (a Scot), the Speaker of the House of Commons made reference to the ‘Auld Alliance’ during a visit of President Sarkozy of France.

    He stated that the early laws of Scotland were actually written in French! Presumably to save time once the French had conquered England and then moved onto Scotland.

  31. They had a common enemy Charlie, which is was also why the young Americans sought an alliance with them as well. Not to mention the fact that they were very kind to Bonny Prince Charlie. ………..Frank

  32. Mel the indifferent

    I’ll respond in the evening when I have nothing to do. I usually post from work, and since I’m quitting this job on Monday, I may not post here since I’ll be busy playing world of warcraft. This was fun tho 😉

  33. That’s the point though appolus, they didn’t have a common enemy, Scotland was part of Britain at that time. There was no war between England and Scotland, they were joined.

    It was British troops they were fighting, not English.

  34. Mel the indifferent,

    You’re quitting your job to play Warcraft?

    I may not agree with you on many points, but I appreciate all of your comments. It is always wise to have both sides of the argument.

  35. Charlie

    There may have been an Act of Union by self-interested landowners from both sides of the border, but this was not a United Kingdom. In fact the basis of Bonnie Prince Charlies skirmish and alliance with France had everything to do with rightful claims to the throne. And that opinion was different, either side of the border. Less to do with nations and more to do with loyalties that crossed imaginary lines on a map………………..Frank

  36. charlie you are a class A fanny . i would love to stamp all over your fuckin poofy english head .

  37. Sadly Ian, what with me being over the age of 7, neither disabled nor female, it’s unlikely that you’d be able to, but still it’s nice to see that some people in Scotland do have ambition.

Please feel free to add your own thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s