Turn on thread page Beta

English Independence? watch

  • View Poll Results: Would you vote for an independent England or an English parliament?
    Separate England now
    12.77%
    Separate England after the secession of one other nation
    1.06%
    Separate English Parliament within the UK
    27.66%
    Separate English Regional Assemblies within the UK
    7.45%
    Separate votes for English laws at Westminster
    18.09%
    Status Quo
    10.64%
    Re-establish primacy of Westminster (reverse devolution)
    20.21%
    Other (specify)
    2.13%

    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arabcnesbit)
    This is why the state should have no control over education. It leads to indoctrination of whatever slant the powers that be want you to think. Very dangerous.
    I don't know if that was aimed at all of us, but I agree. However in my school (only 20/30 miles from the border) the Acts of Union were never even mentioned in history, let alone the reasons from both sides. So rather than having a pro-english slant there was no slant whatsoever.

    My account was basic and oversimplified, but more of less right I think.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    Wasn't there something about the English imposing trade restrictions on Scottish goods too? So if the Scottish parliament didn't agree to it they'd have faced even worse economic problems. And wasn't there some disagreement about royal succession laws?
    The circumstances surrounding the Union are a bizarre mix of long-term interests and short-term political events. The failed Scottish imperial Darien scheme was blamed on a lack of support, even hostility, by England - hardly surprising as the Scots went and set themselves up in territory already claimed by an English ally, which risked damaging relations. This is what renewed interest in Union, particularly in William II/III, who realised - as James VI did - the problem in that period of governing two independent kingdoms.

    Partly as a result of this dual role, and partly due to general discontent with the current political goings-on, the Scots Parliament passed the Act of Security, allowing them to choose a different monarch from England should Queen Anne (as was going to happen) die childless. In consequence, the Parliament of England passed the Aliens Act, which treated Scotland - quite properly, if they intended to divide the shared monarchy - as simply another foreign country.

    Basically, everything kicked off. There was a great wave of anti-English sentiment in Scotland at the time. Union benefited England, who didn't want a neighbour who could ally with anyone and threaten their interests, and Scotland's bluff had been called when it realised that the benefits of an independent monarchy would be massively outweighed by becoming foreign to England. Union was more or less inevitable at this point, despite the tensions which had built up.

    Union had been proposed on countless occasions during happier times. In general, the impetus in these cases came from Scotland and England, although not actively hostile, seemed relatively indifferent and worried not only about the economic consequences but also that the rather dodgy political structure of Scotland may end up being exported across Britain.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arabcnesbit)
    The Scots and English shared a king under James VI but the acts of union weren't signed until over 100 years later.

    The English had made 3 previous attempts in the 1600's to "merge" with Scotland. First under James VI, when the English or Scottish people didn't want it.
    It wasn't so much either England or Scotland, but often the monarch. James VI assumed Union was a foregone conclusion, he didn't even realise that it'd need legislation. As I recall, the Parliament in Scotland was pretty amenable, but the Parliament of England stuck it very much on the back-burner without ever actually condemning the proposal.

    Then when they were members of the commonwealth under Cromwell there was an act of union, but when Charles II came to the thrown, the Scots were punted out of the Commonwealth and Union negotiations were suspended.
    Well, it wasn't really a punting as such - all Cromwellian laws were deemed null and void. Things were simply back to how they had been before.

    What followed was the most prosperous time in the history of Scotland. It became one of the most powerful regions within the British Empire and the world. Then it all went wrong.
    You've missed a bit. Immediately following the Act of Union, Scotland didn't prosper. Indeed, it was stuck in a rather unpleasant situation where economic growth was still in the works, but taxes and duties (as well as the ability to collect them) increased. In 1726 when Daniel Defoe wrote about his Tour thro' the whole Island of Great Britain, even he - as an ardent Unionist - had to admit that the economic improvement he had predicted in Scotland had not transpired.

    It took a while, during which of course there were Jacobite rebellions which latched on to anti-union sentiment as a populist rallying point, that Scotland didn't do well out of the union. Like all good things, they had to wait for it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    It wasn't so much either England or Scotland, but often the monarch. James VI assumed Union was a foregone conclusion, he didn't even realise that it'd need legislation. As I recall, the Parliament in Scotland was pretty amenable, but the Parliament of England stuck it very much on the back-burner without ever actually condemning the proposal.
    Indeed, but there is a vast difference between the parliament and the people.



    Well, it wasn't really a punting as such - all Cromwellian laws were deemed null and void. Things were simply back to how they had been before.
    They were expelled from the commonwealth, what would you call that then?

    You've missed a bit. Immediately following the Act of Union, Scotland didn't prosper. Indeed, it was stuck in a rather unpleasant situation where economic growth was still in the works, but taxes and duties (as well as the ability to collect them) increased. In 1726 when Daniel Defoe wrote about his Tour thro' the whole Island of Great Britain, even he - as an ardent Unionist - had to admit that the economic improvement he had predicted in Scotland had not transpired.

    It took a while, during which of course there were Jacobite rebellions which latched on to anti-union sentiment as a populist rallying point, that Scotland didn't do well out of the union. Like all good things, they had to wait for it.
    Sure, although the same thing happened under Cromwell, an increase in taxes(then to pay for his army) with no benefits apparent.

    It didn't take that long, by the middle of the 18th century Edinburgh was one of the most prosperous cities in Europe and Scotland had split between the lowlands and the highlands. It was the highlanders that wanted to reaffirm the Stuart dynasty hence the 15 and 45 uprisings but most Scots living in the lowlands were doing quite well for themselves under the union and didn't support the Jacobites.

    The question is, is Scotland still better off under the Union?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Occlusal)
    Did you just make that up?

    I'm serious.
    No. Read a book called ' the scots and the Union'. after the act of union, Scotland ended up with more representation in the new british parliament, then the average Englishmen did. scotland's monumental debts were wiped out, and it gained access to England's colonies.
    The English parliament had already rejected a union with ireland in the 1690s, and later rejected a union with Hanover, so it's more surprising that England took the risk of incorporating scotland
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by carlsberg)
    No. Read a book called ' the scots and the Union'. after the act of union, Scotland ended up with more representation in the new british parliament, then the average Englishmen did. scotland's monumental debts were wiped out, and it gained access to England's colonies.
    The English parliament had already rejected a union with ireland in the 1690s, and later rejected a union with Hanover, so it's more surprising that England took the risk of incorporating scotland
    not really in a way , the english did still try to create obstacle for the scot like their colonization attempts
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Independence for all the nations in Britain I think. Then the English will stop moaning about how they subsidise the Scots and the Welsh and the Scots and the Welsh will stop moaning about how mean the English are to them.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by peacefrog16)
    Independence for all the nations in Britain I think. Then the English will stop moaning about how they subsidise the Scots and the Welsh and the Scots and the Welsh will stop moaning about how mean the English are to them.
    So in other words, we should just roll over and let the moaning nationalists in each jurisdiction win?

    No thanks.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    So in other words, we should just roll over and let the moaning nationalists in each jurisdiction win?

    No thanks.
    Even better: Commission a report to look into the possibility of whether or not one nation subsidises another.

    Or better yet: Equalise the per capita spending in each constituent nation - so Scotland doesn't receive more funding, per capita, than England and Wales.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think the thing is that the English wanted to rule the UK so I honestly think England should let the others have independance
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mikejggilli)
    I think the thing is that the English wanted to rule the UK so I honestly think England should let the others have independance
    Rubbish.

    Moreover, no-one need "let" the Home Nations have independence because they don't want it, and more significantly "the English" don't have this power: the Queen and Parliament of the United Kingdom alone does.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Even better: Commission a report to look into the possibility of whether or not one nation subsidises another.

    Or better yet: Equalise the per capita spending in each constituent nation - so Scotland doesn't receive more funding, per capita, than England and Wales.
    Should we have a system where each Home Nation is funded to exactly the same level despite any economic, social or other rationale? I'm not sure I'd agree with you on that one, particularly as expenditure on regions within these areas would continue to vary massively. Also, how do you measure benefit given to a nation? Solely in terms of state expenditure?

    Let me provide an example of why I think that's insufficient. If Britain has a diplomatic service, presumably its costs are attributed to each citizen equally - but what if the service is based in one Home Nation, and thus provides masses of jobs there? How does one account for this? How do you value the greatest subsidy that can be given to a place - being the site of our country's capital city?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Rubbish.

    Moreover, no-one need "let" the Home Nations have independence because they don't want it, and more significantly "the English" don't have this power: the Queen and Parliament of the United Kingdom alone does.
    The Queen Does not use her power and everything is done in her name so the Government has all the power. Also the government is elected by the people so is action on our behalf
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, we should. England would be the country best shaped for sovereignty.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The whole idea of this seems abit stupid to me tbh... Independance from what?

    It's like saying 60 years ago that England became independant rrom its Colonies... It's England that's asserting itself over the other countries in the UK, doesn't make much sense to then turn around and want independance from places it took over does it?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    L i b's comments above outlining the historical context of the Act of Union were good.

    Ironically, it was the union which made Europe envy England, because we had a single language, currency, one system of laws and institution and no internal tariffs; that was the major reason we did not have a revolution in the same way that the French did. The idea of English independence is problematic for a number of reasons: it is a massive constitutional nightmare; and the idea that England would redress the funding issue seems absurd to me - parliament has shown absolutely no interest in things outside of London for hundreds of years.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by J.tytler)
    The whole idea of this seems abit stupid to me tbh... Independance from what?

    It's like saying 60 years ago that England became independant rrom its Colonies... It's England that's asserting itself over the other countries in the UK, doesn't make much sense to then turn around and want independance from places it took over does it?
    I get that England in a sense dominates the UK because of the massive population difference (and hence most MPs represent a constituency in England), but it's different to the colonies. The colonies had no representation in the UK government. The UK government had power over them, but did not represent them. Meaning that the colonies had no power over the UK at all.

    Although English MPs vastly outnumber MPs from the other parts of the UK, they still have representation. They still get a say in how England is run. So English independence does make sense (not saying it "makes sense" meaning it's a good idea) because then people from outside of England wouldn't have any say in how England is run.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    Although English MPs vastly outnumber MPs from the other parts of the UK, they still have representation. They still get a say in how England is run. So English independence does make sense (not saying it "makes sense" meaning it's a good idea) because then people from outside of England wouldn't have any say in how England is run.
    True, but it's just the whole idea of the bigger power wanting independnce from the smaller one that doesn't seem logical to me... especially since giving them representation was essentilly a concession by the Engligh government (albeit not a very recent one, but the point still stands).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by J.tytler)
    True, but it's just the whole idea of the bigger power wanting independnce from the smaller one that doesn't seem logical to me... especially since giving them representation was essentilly a concession by the Engligh government (albeit not a very recent one, but the point still stands).
    True in the case of Wales I suppose, and maybe Ireland depending on how you look at it, but certainly not Scotland.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I'm for re-establishing primacy of Westminster (reverse devolution). If this is one nation then it should have one government. Possibly with the separate nations to have 'councils' to decide small issues that only effect that nation.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.