By - antihashcist
Trying to see history in terms of nation vs nation is always a mistake despite most people wanting to do it that way.
History is generally told in terms of rich cunts irrespective of nationality doing their thing and everyone else just surviving beneath this.
This whole thread is a bunch of historically illiterate people arguing with each other.
Also, claiming the Darien scheme was the sole reason for the Act of Union is in itself historically illiterate.
I know that the Darien scheme wasn’t the sole reason why we joined the Union, I regret saying ‘only’ in the original post header, I was just using it to indicate like the main reason, but you’re right that’s exactly what this thread is, and I’m not absolving myself in that
I don't understand why Scottish slaveowners being bastards means Scotland can't also abolish the monarchy like Barbados did?
Nah, I wasn’t meaning that, like I hope after independence we do become a republic and get rid of the Queen like Barbados. I was just saying more the way in which people talk about Scotland as if we suffered under colonial rule, just making the point we didn’t, we profited from colonial rule. So it’s quite offensive to people who in those countries, when certain people in Scotland pretend to be victims not perpetrators
The poor in Scotland have never been slaveowners.
Lumping one group of folk with those who had and currently still have power, land and money is precisely how you lose the argument.
The poor of Scotland were kept poor and used as cannon fodder for the empire. You just have to look outside Edinburgh to see that Scotland is a fairly impoverished place. So telling folks that they didn't suffer or indeed have benefitted somehow from the empire isn't going to do the conversation any favours.
It's of course a little more complex than that, but I hope you got my point.
What do you mean by we? My family didn't profit from colonial rule, from what I have found my ancesters in the most part were farm labourers (not farmers, workers for farmers).
In Scotland, within the 'union' it gave the opportunity to those in the elite classes mainly to make money at the expense of others, they are the one's who profited. The vast majority of the people of Scotland did not. It was the decision of the elite for example to through people off the land, famously in the Highlands and less famously in the Lowlands, people being dispossessed of the land they and their forebearers had worked have a reason to be considered victims.
Your family might not have profited in the sense that they were abroad trading in human beings, but we have all benefited through the profits colonialism brought to Scotland. Just look at Kelvingrove or Central station they’re are built with wealth plundered during colonialism and we all benefit from them
what are you expecting folk to do or feel about that. honestly hate this guilt tripping pish when none of us had anything to do with anything n our worst crimes were just being born and growing up somewhere that's not bad. what's your motivation here, what are we meant to do about shit that happened 100s of years ago.
You’re no meant to feel guilty about it? It’s about trying to rebalance the injustice that you benefited from for all those years? Like for example giving stuff we stole back from the Scottish national museum, or what about helping countries struggling with the effects of heavy industry that we basically invented? It’s naw just about trying to bleak folk out, but say we have a responsibility to try and help make up for the countries which we damaged
>but say we have a responsibility to try and help make up for the countries which we damaged
I'd agree if it was recent history but surely there's a point in which you have to say it's too far back? We should definitely return the stolen artifacts but putting the fiscal responsibility on the Scottish taxpayers for what some rich assholes did over 300 years ago is a step too far.
No like I obviously agree we can’t go harping all the back to adjudicate like the fall of Rome and shit. But also I know it feels like a long time ago to us but India only declared independence 74 years ago for example, so that’s like still within a single lifetime really
If somebody who was going to beat you in a job interview gets randomly murdered, do you have a responsibility to rebalance that injustice by sharing your new salary with their family?
Your argument relies on the assumption that "you benefitted from this injustice, so you owe to those who suffered from it" is some sort of common sense moral principle.
But it's not. As evidenced by the above example. Most people would very strongly agree that it's not your responsibility to look after that family, but instead the responsibility of either the murderer or, failing that, society as a whole, drawing first from those with most.
Nobody owes anything to anyone simply because they benefitted from an injustice. Those with more have an obligation to help those with less. That's it. In other words, "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need." It's a pretty simple principle. There's zero reason to muddy the waters with these stupid attempts to ascribe guilt and responsibility based on what country you live in or what fucking train station you use.
>giving stuff we stole back from the Scottish national museum
You're utterly deluded if you think the people who are *actually* suffering in this world care about this kind of thing. This stupid debate is solely the reserve of the middle class here and abroad.
Struggling people in Nigeria and India aren't spending their days crying about some ruby or figurine that's in another country. Having these things in some museum in Lagos or Delhi instead of Edinburgh isn't going to do anything whatsoever to alleviate their suffering.
If anything I'd say this kind of thing can be actively bad for those suffering in the global south. It's just a cheap way for people like you in the north to assauge your guilty conscience, without actually doing that much of any substance.
"We" invented a lot of things that have massively helped the world, so if you're going to complain about heavy industries damaging the world, what about all the ways Scottish inventions have helped the world. Nothing about that, no? Will we just take all [that shit](https://www.scotland.org/about-scotland/culture/scottish-inventions) back again as well?
Yes a lot of people suffered under colonialism but pointing the fingers at Scottish working class people alive now in 2021 and saying its our burden and WE need to redress the balance is fucking stupid and ignorant of history *and* of present day circumstances. Me and my family and 99% of the folk in here have nothing to "rebalance", no one alive today should be feeling guilt over stuff that happened 100s of years before they were even born, get a fuckin grip man.
Trickle down colonialism!
Hmm, maybe seize half of Scotland that's still owned by the Aristocracy and fund reperations and redistribute the rest?
Sounds like a plan
>as if we suffered under colonial rule, just making the point we didn’t
Oh really. come to the cleared parts of the west coast, with abandoned villages and houses rotting into the ground and say that. Scotland \*HAS\* suffered under colonial rule, and the attempt to pretend otherwise is unionist pish retold and reworded to try to prevent us from ever having the confidence to get out from under it.
Your entire post reeks of "But we really are too wee, too poor and too stupid, and need to accept that". Fuck that. We can tell the dirty, horrible truth of Scotland's involvement in slavery and brutal acts of violence across the world - and the enrichment of the usual tiny majority of cunts through the slave trade - without erasing the cultural genocide and ethnic cleansing that was done here.
tough to acknowledge - it is entirely possible to be both the victim, and the aggressor, and one does not erase or justify the other.
Nah man you’ve totally lost me. Like you’re literally inventing positions that I’ve never said I hold. I support an independent Scotland being a Socialist republic, the idea I think we’re ‘too stupid’ or any of that shit is just fucking nonsense.
I agree we can tell the stories of the attempts to crush the culture here, but a lot of that was done by Scottish lords in pursuit of wealth from down south. Obviously a lot of the intentional destruction of the Gaelic language was done by the British, but we weren’t treated like a colony, it’s just disingenuous to say we were
Nobody alive in Scotland today is a victim or a perpetrator of colonialism. Anyone saying any different is an idiot.
We're not victims or perpetrators but we are beneficiaries. It's much better to grow up in Scotland than anywhere in Africa or Asia that Britain colonised.
To a degree, yes.
The consistent drip of self-flagellating posts about it appearing here isn't productive though.
mate most of us just popped out of our mums here and stayed where we were. are we meant to feel guilty that it's an OK place to grow up? what's the point bringing it up when none of us have done anything except be lucky where we were born.
You're not disagreeing with anything im saying. We are lucky to have been born on Scotland rather than a former colony in Africa or Asia.
Why bring it up? Well why study history at all? To understand the present situation and why it's lucky to be born on Scotland and not somewhere like Sudan.
It's a slightly simplistic way to look at things though.
By most metrics, you'd be luckier to be born in Singapore (a former British colony) than Scotland. And there are also plenty of countries who didn't have empires or colonies who are doing better than Scotland now. So it's not as easy as saying "country that was a coloniser = privileged and country that was colonised = not privileged".
There is literally a fucking zone of Barbados called ‘the Scotland district’
There's a Kilmarnock in Jamaica. Life expectancy slightly higher there I reckon
There's a Barbados House in Kilmarnock
That's the Republic of Barbados to you. :)
The comment was made in jest.
Republic of Scotland next r/AbolishTheMonarchy
You seem confused. You realise that's because there were white Scottish indentured servants there? Aka slaves. There are still white bajans there who can trace their ancestry back to being transported there and used for labour.
Scottish colonialism happened, but using the Scotland District in Barbados as an example of it is misguided at best.
You sure mate?
I just read in the comments that my ancestors benefitted from colonialsm and therefore it must be false that I was told some of them were sold/sent across to the plantations.
I know you're joking, but both can be true, and likely were.
yeah the whole Nova Scotia thing I didn’t put together until recently, but I’m reading about Burmese history and I guess there was a ton of Scottish influence in that too ://
As fun as it is to watch all the people to scramble in with the misdirections, excuses and whatever else, it really shouldn’t be up for debate that Scotland was a colonial power.
It’s just one of those things you know assuming you’ve done even a little research on the subject.
We can also face up to that now. Nothing is stopping that.
Yup, no country should ignore it's own past failings. This is the same thing I think whenever wanks argue about not teaching about racism in history classes - we should be learning the bad as well as the good. We should be aware and we should be teaching kids about the good and the bad of our country so we can learn from these mistakes and work to never repeat them.
Agreed. Sometimes I'm completely exasperated at how much of a nationalist echo chamber this sub is. It's possible to want the best for one's country while not shying from owning up to its mistakes. Look at Germany.
Not having a go at you here but this is something that I really think is a myth. Germany talks big about how much they own their past but are really not up to much. Sure they are taught to feel sad about the holocaust but Jesus fuck will the excuses start rattling off when all the horrible dodgy stuff that happened in west Germany gets brought up, how the German ruling party was set up, the general economic rape of the east in the 90s or the recent history like how horrible they were to Greece after 2008
Germany's reckoning with the past is extremely superficial and it's worrying how many people seem to think otherwise, most especially Germans.
Austria had a Nazi war criminal (okay technically alleged but they never bothered to try him either and that wasn't due to a lack of evidence) as President up until the 90s who had his funeral at St. Stephen's Cathedral (Vienna) and was buried at the prestigious Vienna Central Cemetery in the 2000s.
You do get that it's like that because everyone is essentially in battle mode constantly.
When you've got the entire British establishment, media & a constant stream of bad faith actors undermining the cause and straight gaslighting then it's no surprise people fortify one of the few spaces that are predominantly indy.
Also gtf with that pish anyway as if you're some sort of sage hitting out with a comment that's been made a million times.
There's not one sub where politics is prominent that doesn't turn into some sort of echo chamber.
What does facing up to that mean in practical terms?
being honest about it, mainly - not hiding from it
To clarify, do you mean what steps we take towards doing that, or what the actual impacts of doing that are?
On steps to actually take, it means overhauling how we see things to put it simply. It can be physical things like renaming streets named after slave owners, taking down statues who’s only achievement was to profit off colonialism, returning looted artifacts, reworking how history is taught so that the events that shaped the modern world, and Scotland, are actually studied and not just passed off with little detail.
The big thing though, is education. Studying that history and it’s impacts up to the modern day. Exploring and explain those events that are so often sidelined, if studied at all.
As to actual impacts, it’ll change a significant amount of worldview for people, both in and outside Scotland. It’ll allow use to actually understand the challenges many nations face, it’ll allow us to reconcile with the past - where before we may have boasted, we’ll be able to recognise that, no that was actually terrible and not something to boast about.
Which, unsurprisingly, will greatly help use in interacting with those places and generally just make us better people.
How do we study history which has been publicly erased by removing statues, renaming streets and rewriting books?
Isn't part of the history that we used to boast about this and think it was good? In fact isn't that one of the most important parts?
Literally no-one is suggesting rewriting books.
Statues and street names are a means by which to *celebrate* something as if it is a *good thing*. We absolutely should replace them when we realize that they are actually a source of shame.
How would you feel about living on Margaret Thatcher Street, or having a great big bronze statue of Pol Pot right outside your office?
>Literally no-one is suggesting rewriting books.
I don't think you can say this.
There is a very strong push (weirdly enough, since 2014, go figure...) to produce books which frame the highland clearances in a soft, gentle way (think Michael Fry "Wild Scots", or Twat Boy Oliver's boot licking TV show) while older accounts such as Prebbles are being criticised as inaccurate.
individual books are not rewritten, but if the older, harsher critiques are all being replaced with fawning unionist love-ins, then history IS being rewritten.
Agree on the statues coming down, but I would see them moved to a specific museum to put them in a context rather than destroy them.
Totally agree, and there also seems to be an effort to blame the clearances on Scots carrying it out against Scots while ignoring the fact that the Duke of Sutherland for instance was English, he was literally the son of the Marquis of Stafford, or the fact that literal ethnic cleansing in the Highlands happened after the union and without any objection from the British Government.
>Statues and street names are a means by which to celebrate something as if it is a good thing. We absolutely should replace them when we realize that they are actually a source of shame.
Oh man wait until you get around the to the art galleries. It's all going to have to go. You better sharpen your pitchfork.
You mean the museums that can have a guided tour and plaques explaining the colonialist history of such art? Totally the same as naming a street after a slaver cunt.
It's been interesting watching so much debate from people who seem to think Barbados has just become independent, when they did so in 1966.
Becoming a republic was an important step but they have been an independent nation for a long time.
As Barbados has shown being independent and being a republic aren't the same. If Scotland were to gain independence but still with the Queen as head of state then it would still be a fully independent country, as otherwise you'd be claiming that the likes of Canada and Australia aren't independent.
I know, I was trying to make the point that once we become independent, or even in the discussion leading up to it, comparing us to Barbados, and other colonies, like that initial Tweet did just isn’t helpful. Somehow that grew arms and legs and shot off into a million different arguments about independence in the comments, but you’re so right
Indeed. And in a new independence referendum as it seems is happening there will be attempts to conflate independence with the monarchy, in either direction. For the unionist side is as good a way as any to ensure a No vote.
Yeaaaa the Darien scheme wasn't exactly our best idea...
> The Alien Act provided that Scottish nationals in England were to be treated as aliens (foreign nationals), and estates held by Scots would be treated as alien property, making inheritance much less certain. It also included an embargo on the import of Scottish products into England and English colonies – about half of Scotland's trade, covering goods such as linen, cattle and coal. There was also an embargo on the export of arms, ammunition, and horses to Scotland so that they could not raise an army and invade England. Faced with the economic pressure the Scots decided to unionize, something that certain interests in England had wanted for over a century. With the Union in 1707 free trade was established along with a single parliament.
>The Act contained a provision that it would be suspended if the Scots entered into negotiations regarding a proposed union of the parliaments of Scotland and England. The Act demanded that a settlement of succession or authorize union negotiation by December 25, 1705. The Scots insisted that the Alien Act be repealed before entering into treaty negotiations.
[Plus the decision to join the union wasn’t popular with the locals](https://www.scotsman.com/heritage-and-retro/heritage/remembering-day-treaty-union-was-signed-following-months-rioting-streets-1397105)
> From Glasgow to Dumfries to Lanark, people took arms with articles of the treaty burnt in the street.
> In October 1706, the Scottish Parliament met to consider and ratify the Articles of Union. Publication of the Articles triggered widespread unrest.
>Violent demonstrations took place outside Parliament House, and inside there were fears that the building would be invaded by protesters.
> Troops were brought into the city with orders to shoot if necessary, and several regiments were placed at l on the Scottish border and in Ireland in the event of trouble.
> By December 1706, parliament was ordering the burning of pamphlets that challenged the proposed union with the papers to be destroyed by the hangman at Edinburgh’s Mercat Cross. Further proclamations were made against so-called seditious meeting.
> Honours, appointments, pensions and even arrears of pay and other expenses were distributed to secure support from Scottish peers and MPs
> Under the Treaty of Union, Scotland was paid £398,000 - a sum known as ‘the Equivalent’. This would partially offset losses incurred by the failed Darien Scheme to set up a colony in the Isthmus of Panama.
> It would also compensate Scotland for sharing the responsibility for England’s national debt of £18 million.
>On January 16, the Act ratifying the treaty was finally passed by 110 votes to 69 with the nobility forming the largest pro-Union group.
Look, I already said that the Scottish ‘working class’ if you’d call people in 1700 that, we’re unhappy about the act of Union, because they hadn’t pissed all their money away in Central America.
But I find it fascinating where you chose to stop quoting that article on the Alien act. We both know that didn’t come to pass in a vacuum and the article you you’re quoted directly states: (coincidentally just after you ended your quote)
“In late December, news that both the Commons and the Lords had agreed to repeal the act reached the north. Combined with English financial offers to refund Scottish losses on the Darien scheme, the Act achieved its aim, leading to the Acts of Union 1707 uniting the two countries as the Kingdom of Great Britain.”
The Alien act was only introduced to help increase the pressure on the Scottish nobility to sign the act of Union. I mean c’mon, the alien act was signed just 5 years after the 2nd Darien scheme was abandoned, and the act of Union just 2 years after that. You’re trying to manipulate history to make it reflect only what you want.
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove but "we only did it to bully you into signing the act of union" doesn't seem like any more pleasant an explanation.
Yeah, sorry I know this is going to come as a shock, but it’s significantly more pleasant an explanation than when we turned up to Zimbabwe or South Africa or India and put people up against walls and executed them or put them in concentration camps.
I don't see them suggesting that it's as bad as slavery or murder, but they are responding to your point that they used the threat of removing people's property and banning the sale of goods from Scotland. That's a bit more pressure than just "it was only because we were poor and needed a bailout".
If anything, the only person misrepresenting history is your oversimplified title.
Did you even bother your arse to read my full post?
You’re the one who argued that we “only” joined the union because of our attempted to colonialism
That’s clearly untrue.
So if you want to talk about historical literacy, maybe you should look at yourself first before preaching to others
Edit: I just seen your comparison to Americans who deny the US civil war was about owning slaves
Credibly down the pan
>The Alien act was only introduced to help increase the pressure on the Scottish nobility to sign the act of Union. I mean c’mon, the alien act was signed just 5 years after the 2nd Darien scheme was abandoned, and the act of Union just 2 years after that. You’re trying to manipulate history to make it reflect only what you want.
The Alien Act was a response to the Scottish Act of Security, which threatened to break the union of the crowns. Scottish people in England were afforded all manner of privileges because they were subjects of the same Crown and, thus, not aliens.
The whole affair certainly gave impetus to union, highlighting its necessity in maintaining the status quo in the British Isles. But that's quite a way from what you seem to be suggesting.
I'm happy to accept that. So if we go independent we should promise not to colonize anywhere and I think that's a fair resolution.
Now I'm just a Dane asking silly questions, but is colonizing something countries still do? I thought would agree that colonization is just history. Didn't expect that to even be a debate? Except maybe in Russia or China
hawaii and puerto rico are active US colonies. imperialism is the name of the game now, and while it might look a little different the players never really stopped playing.
I guess you can say Russia is still trying to colonize Ukraine :/
And China with HK and Taiwan
China's got their eyes on Africa too, except rather than military force they're moving in using loans for infrastructure which sounds good on paper until you can't pay back their oppressive terms and they start claiming property as collateral.
Look there’s an awful lot to criticise China and the CCP for, but honestly those loans in Africa are one of the last things. Them giving loans to build infrastructure is better than the Americans just straight up handing over arms. We’re so used to the American status quo of the last 70 years, where their fingers are in every pie
This is thinking far ahead, but the Moon, Mars...
and the belt and when the ring ststem opens up 1300 more options r/theexpanse
Yeah I'm stunned to see people suggesting we need to write in a manifesto that we promise not to colonise another country. There's a number of reasons why this would never happen today, including the obvious fact that we simply could not afford to do such a thing. Both financially and politically.
Also this whole thread is just a total mess. People either don't have a clue what they're talking about, or knowingly post very selective things about history. If anything, it makes me realise we need to teach about this in high school history classes so there's no widespread misunderstandings like the entire thread.
Are you serious?
Clearly they were making a tongue in cheek comment.
Side note: my reanimation chamber is complete. Im bringing Hitler & Churchill back so I can watch them first fight to the death
> Yeah I'm stunned to see people suggesting we need to write in a manifesto that we promise not to colonise another country
I don't think there is any way that is not a joke. I'm stunned that anyone would take it seriously.
I agree. But it would be good in the 2023 white paper if the SNP & Greens promise not to colonize anywhere. Just so the voter knows.
Was there ever a nation that went independent and actually regretted it?
Jesus, it's mental to me that Glasgow was 'the second city of the empire' but people think our hands are somehow clean. Maybe not your own ancestors but there were certainly Scottish people involved who became very rich from it. I'm sure working class people didn't see much of it, but I doubt they did in England either
Why should I personally do anything about the fact that the same rich people who exploited my ancestors also exploited people around the world? The Darien venture was not mounted by peasants, why should I be expected to identify with laird's? I do not.
We need some more historical literacy that Scotland is an Irish colony from the first millennia, and that there were people here before the Gaels came and committed cultural genocide. More cognisance that the Picts were sold as slaves to the Irish, and Irish to the Picts, and the Britons to the Picts, and the Picts to the Norse, but also Picts to Picts, Norse to Norse, Irish to Irish; you get the idea.
Rich people have always exploited poor people and have never cared about thier ethnicity.
We need to get over this wierd historical lens through which we only care about the past few hundred years of history.
We need to understand that the world's bounties are not evenly distributed between you tries and whilst not in anyway a justification for war, it's a statement that the distribution of resources has never been even, and always lop sided.
We need to have a positive, inclusive supportive international policy, that's it. Were not better than anyone else nor worse.
OP your sentiment is very important for people to understand, but you're playing too fast and loose with how we "only joined the union after our own failed attempt at colonialism."
How the forces of English mercantilism and capitalist exploitation shaped our countries history is extremely important to recognize. We were slowly and systematically owned long before the failed Darien scheme, this should be accepted. The highland clearances are a visceral example of what a successful campaign of internal-colonization looks like. Yes, there were actions taken by scots against other scots, but they were done in the name of english rule & legal justification. These actions didn't happen in a vacuum.
My parents immigrated to Canada essentially as economic migrants because of the neoliberal plague that thatcherism unleashed on us. I grew up being told of my peoples history in the highlands and what we went through, and how Westminster's laissez-faire economics decimated my families livelihood. What I came to understand is that I too am playing the role of a colonizer by being on these lands, over the indigenous people who live here. It's hypocritical of me to rally against England's "colonization" of Scotland whilst actively contributing to colonization myself.
I believe that we can honour our peoples history and trauma from the forces of colonization whilst also recognizing and admitting the roles we played in continuation of that same colonization
We need to accept the roles we played in history, as do the Irish with their slave trade, but we should never forget our own struggle.
Worth keeping in mind that the clearances were largely post-Culloden and into the mid-nineteenth century due to evolving economic structures. So to identify the clearances as an example of pre-Darien dominance by English forms of proto-capitalism/mercantilism is not historically sound
Don't underestimate quite how much the lowlanders really hated and feared the highlanders. They gave far more thought to this backwards papist menace on their door step than anyone in England ever did.
It's intetesting to think just how things would have came to a head there sans union of the crowns. The two worlds were drifting apart in very different directions.
No I think you’re totally right, and like what you’ve said is a much more refined, clear version of what I was trying to say, especially about how over time we were slowly owned long before what people consider the final visual Union. I just wrote it out really quickly and didn’t think about the fact I’d used the word ‘only’ but thank you
Very well put.
The thread title is not a fact.
Some of the nobility had bankrupted themselves because of the Darien fiasco.
Others, having invested in the newly set up Bank of Scotland, were doing ok for themselves. Darien takes place a full 10 years prior to the Act of Union, it's a complete myth that this was the main factor behind it.
Scotland was bullied into Union by England. The Stuart line was dying out in the 18th century and placing the Catholic James VII/II on the throne was politically unacceptable in both Scotland and England. The English Parliament passed the Act of Succession in 1701 which placed the English crown on Sophia of Hanover and her Protestant descendants (this Act still determines the line of succession to the British monarchy). Scotland responded by saying they reserved the right to go a different path to England.
This could have led to warfare as France and Spain were supportive of the Catholic Stuarts and we could well have had the War of English Succession had the Scottish Parliament reverted the Crown to the Stuarts. Understandably, England was quite keen to shore up its northern border and avoid this sort of situation.
England responded by passing the Alien Act in 1705 which threatened to strip the Scottish nobility of their land and incomes held and derived in England, and it was the passing of this Act that forces the Scots to the table and results in the creation of the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707.
Really refreshing to see a country approach their colonial past with this mindset. Good job guys.
I hope you don’t mind me asking but what’s this country going to look like once we get independence because I don’t know of any plans the SNP have for once we’ve gotten independence.
Also why can’t we just declare independence from the UK instead of waiting several years for a referendum?
The Darien Scheme was an awful Scottish enterprise. But we entered into the union because, after the rich folk who'd invested in the Darien scheme all lost their money, they were offered their money back (by English landowners) *if* they dissolved the Scottish parliament and merged it with the English parliament. Which those rich fuckers did, at the expense of every single Scot.
It is also worth noting that the train of money sent from Westminster up to Holyrood to reimburse the rich colonialist fuckers who sold out their countries parliament to England was pelted by Scottish folk for the entire duration of its journey, who recognised that they had lost their political sovereignty due to the rich arseholes in charge wanting to recoup their lost expenses at a foolish attempt to play colonisers.
Literally, this is the point I was trying to make, not that the Scottish people chose to join England or chose the Darien expedition, but that Scottish lords chose to join the Union and that’s why it’s wrong to describe us as a colony
Considering the [seven ill years](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_ill_years), and the halt to trade with France that England's war with them caused, would you not say that Scotland's hand was somewhat forced into the Darien Scheme?
I mean we lost up to 15% of our population to famine in the years before we went to Panama, then [some fancy bigwig](https://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/usbiography/p/williampaterson.html) appears and dupes the people of Scotland into this idea, selling it as a last ditch attempt to stop Scottish people dying of hunger? It was apparently sold as a new paradise with bountiful exotic fruits and fertile land, then when they got there it turned out Paterson, and the others behind the plot, had never set foot on the soil, just seen it from afar at sea, and the land was basically useless swamp-land, infested with exotic diseases.
Then the King of Scotland, who was also the King of England (and is suspected to have supported joining his crowns into one kingdom back then), withdrew any English aid that was promised, and then refused to let the Scottish ships dock in any of their Carribbean colonies after the Spanish showed up and told the Scots to get to fuck, starving many and causing even more loss to Scotland.
Obviously colonialism was and is a horrendous thing. I can't fully remember the story of what happened in Panama, but from what I can remember the only people that got harmed were Scottish and a few Spanish, the few locals there (there weren't many as the land was so inhospitable, even to this day it's one of the least densely populated areas in the world) were left in peace. I might be wrong there and I'm not saying it was OK, but I can understand why people might have supported going, if their friends and families are all dying of hunger and there seemed no other option.
Absolutely. It feels like Scottish history stops after Bannockburn. And while I get how that’s happened, it doesn’t excuse the shitty stuff that Scotland did in that time and pretending it didn’t happen can easily lead down the same road as the folk who demand less information in museums.
I'm very willing to agree that Scotland is responsible for a lot of evil things when it comes to slavery and colonialism and much more should be done to acknowledge it.
"...the fact Scotland only entered the Union, because of our own disastrous attempt at colonialism..."
But this bit isn't true. You may want to look at the historical literacy yourself with regards to the Darien Scheme instead of trusting the 'facts' posted on reddit. "The Darien Disaster" by John Prebble is a good book to start with.
Prebble is well known for being historically illiterate and writing pop fiction with a gross bias towards romanticising Scotland’s history. He is by no means a credible historian.
Try ‘Scotland’s Empire’ by Tom Devine.
EDIT: The absolute state of some of these comments. The English made us do empire 🥺
Please explain which part of the Darien scheme was a success? It wiped 20% of the Scottish money in circulation out. There was a multitude of factors, but that was the main one.
I've read some of your comments here and its fucking rich you calling anyone else "condescending" you fucking roaster
I mean, you do get the irony of demanding "more historical literacy" by using a very naive and simplistic statement about a very complex historical event as an example, right?
You should try to learn more about the historical context to gain a better understanding of why the Darien scheme was attempted, and what factors led to its failure. For example, England instructed their colonies to refuse to trade with them. Many historians believe that it could have had a good chance of succeeding if they had been able to trade.
In short, the Darien failure wasn't the event that caused the Union to be created, it was only the last domino to fall. The chain of events began a lot earlier.
No I’m sorry, no one thinks that, do you know how many roads go through the Darien gap in the year of our lord 2021?
None, you have to hike. It's the one place you cant drive through on the entire American continent. It's the most inhospitable, dense, swampy jungle.
So, excuse me if find it hard to believe swarthy lads from Aberdeen could have settled it in the 1700s, if only it was for those pesky English.
(I say as someone with no love for the English state)
> Said as someone with no love for the English
The state of this.
Sorry, I should have clarified I’m not talking about a single normal working person in England.
But the English state and upper class. That nasty and repressive attitude that celebrates bigotry and it’s own inherent superiority, yeah, I’m no fan of that, but you’re right, I should have clarified what I meant
Are you aware what happened in Aberdeen in the years preceding the Darien Scheme?
The Panama canal exists not very far from there today. The Darien Venture was a worthy cause and actually quite a good idea. As the other guy said, the English were one of the biggest factors in contributing to its failure.
I’m not sure I would describe any colonial endeavour as a ‘worthy cause’ that sort of implies it was moral or ethical? As a business venture in theory, hypothetically it had the ability to make money.
But the main reason it failed was not the English, it was the fact we chose literally the most inhospitable piece of land in America. Rewriting England to be the villain in all of Scottish history, just let’s the true villains (the Scottish nobility) away with it
You sound like you're about 12.
>swarthy lads from Aberdeen
Without googling it, do you know what swarthy means?
>if only it was for those pesky English. (Said as someone with no love for the English)
What's this supposed to mean? What's wrong with the English people like?
Unionists who are pretending to be nationalists think that they have to insert some anti-English sentiment into their comments in order to look authentic.
I've been told I always sound condescending. I don't like people rewriting history in the same way as you really. I'd rather help educate and point people towards the real facts that are available.
Can you point me to a factual source proving/stating, even implying that 20 percent of all Scottish money was lost?
Everything I have read points toward Scotland having zero debt at the time of the Act of Union. The main investors in the Scotland Company (half of whom were London based by the way) had lost quite a bit of money. Some of them held a bit of power in the Scottish Parliament though...
A payment was made by England as part of the agreement to the Union but this money was not to Scotland, it was to the investors to cover their losses.
So to my understanding, The Scotland company initially managed to raise a huge amount of money from not only investors in England but also the Netherlands and Hamburg. However, the East India trading company was unhappy that it would lose its monopoly over trade. So they threatened to sue the Scotland company basically saying they didn't have the king's permission to raise funds outside the country. So, as a result all of the funds raised from England and abroad had to be sent back.
Then they raised 53 million pounds from inside Scotland, which was roughly 20% of the total currency in circulation but when all that disappeared in South America, the Scottish economy exploded and England agreed to underwrite the debt as part of the Union.
Yes and, as always, quite bit more complicated.
Scotland was recovering from a large famine that had happened just a few yeara before.
Patterson, the guy who came up with the idea for the company (and was already successful for his part in creating the Bank of England) had already been to the Caribbean. He had heard of the Panama after talking to some Buccaneers who had raided the Spanish ports there and had tried to persuade investors from the European continent that if someone created a trade passage over the Isthmus, it would give them full control of trade to the Far East without having to go around Africa.
Long story short (as I can make it), some said yes but were then pressured out by the already big trading companies. He and some friends (mostly Scots based in London) eventually got the Scotland Company started via what is called the Scottish Privy Council. The Council had the authority of the King of the UK in Scottish matters as kings barely visited north of the border, never mind ever basing themselves there.
The King was fighting overseas at the time so they got it sorted without him even knowing about it.
England at the time had a few big companies already on the go and didn't want to be sharing the spoils of their colonies with another Scottish one so again they donr what they could to push out the non Scottish members of the company.
More money came in from rich Scots in Edinburgh causing the number of big hitters in the company to be half in Edinburgh and half in London and not communicating very well.
They bought some second hand ships from the continent and took a fleet to Darien, not just to set up a colony but to create what Patterson hoped would become an international trade route which Scotland could profiteer from.
The problems started immediately when the king returned and wasn't happy about the company being set up with his blessing (without him know knowing anything about it) and due to the fact he didn't want to start a war with Spain (who claimed Panama/Columbia at the time) he prevented the British ports in the Caribbean from trading or helping the Scotland Company ships.
The ships ended up going straight to Darien without being able to trade their goods with New York, Jersey, Jamaica, Bermuda etc. on the way.
They made a deal with the local tribe leaders (who still mostly ruled the wild land) that they would help keep the Spanish away in return for land to create New Caledonia. Sadly the land in Darien turned out to be one of the most inhospitable places on Earth (it still is to this day). They did find a whole lot of gold by the way, it is even shown on a map they made.
A lot of people died on the long journey, many more died from disease when they arrived (including Pattersons wife and kid), they couldn't trade with neighbours to resupply, the Spanish attacked and the Scots counter attacked, the locals had no need for the goods they had brought to trade, building a road through the Isthmus looked to be impossible (there still isn't one to this day), basically everything that could go wrong did go wrong.
There was a resupply fleet but by the time it arrived, the first settlers were already dead or had sailed up to Virginia. The resupply fleet abandoned all hope and went north.
Patterson got home and took the brunt of all the hatred from both families of the settlers and from the investors of the company.
In all they lost a lot of people and the costs of the ships and goods.
I may have skimmed over a whole lot of details but didn't realise how long this was going to turn out to be.
> Scotland only entered the Union, because of our own disastrous attempt at colonialism.
Not a fact, in fact bollocks.
You'll get in way of the Daily Mail types simplistic view of Scottish History by asking for their 'workings'. :)
It's interesting cause I've seen it thrown about on the internet, that Scotland had slaves and such. I've never known anything about it, wasn't taught it. Definitely didn't learn it from family either, considering they came from Italy not that long ago 😅
I think it's be good to learn more about this though. Hey, netflix, you know what to do
They don't even teach it at higher level history. It only focuses on English slave owners, not a tweet is said about scotlands role, only to say that we brought sheep to New Zealand and Australia
i was kinda taught it, like about glasgow and how the city was formed and grew, like a lot of famous buildings, the only one coming to mind at 1 o'clock being the GOMA, belonged to a tobacco baron, back in the day
Yeah I was taught that too, but it was less about slavery and more about what exports from the colonies brought into Glasgow. I went to high school in Dunfermline and we did like a whole week as coursework on the linen industry here, yet not one peep about who was actually growing and harvesting said linen
Could be worse. English history only teaches about abolishment, not so much the Atlantic triangle
That's interesting. So, why?
I have no idea. I always wondered myself. I wouldn't be surprised if it was some bias, purposeful or not. I'm not sure how it is taught in England or wales.
Could you list Scottish people's historical responsibilities please?
Well I mean it would be a long and exhaustive list but we’re a wealthy country in Northern Europe who’s benefited both from rampant industrialisation and colonialism, needless to say we have dirty hands
What are our historical responsibilities?
> we’re a wealthy country in Northern Europe
But according to your fellow Unionists we're poorer than Belarus, and so poor we can't be independent. Make your mind up.
Where have you got the idea that I don’t support independence? I campaigned for & voted Yes in 2014, and I would do the same tomorrow?
What do you think someone who criticises Scotland colonial past would have in common with a diehard Unionist?
Well you certainly come across as a concern troll.
A ‘concern troll’ I don’t know what that is, but I’m sorry I don’t see Scottish independence as an end point. It’s the beginning of building a fairer and more equal society, I think part of the process of building that society is working out or obligations and policies that we want to peruse after independence.
That’s not ‘concern trolling’ that’s why we need independence, so we can do things like recognise our colonial past. Part of the reason people even want out of the UK is because they’ll never do something like that.
I worry that sometimes some independence supporters focus so much on the act itself, and not enough on the kind of society we need to work and steer Scotland to be in the immediate upheaval afterwords.
Because after we achieve independence there will be people who want us to veer to the right & we need to have plans in place to guard against that.
Why is it relevant?
It isn't. Yet another pointless brow-beating about historical things that no one except right-wing shitehouses would attempt today but trying to, effectively, 'pre-smear' a potentially more progressive Scotland (well, at least more progressive than 'permanent' Tory UK rule) in the process. Transparent.
"Before we think about what we can do for Scotland's future we must think about things we had no control over hundreds of years ago. "
I don’t think if we’re building a progressive independent country moving forward, that it’s helpful to misconstrue history and claim we suffered in the same way a colony did.
It relegates our very real role in the empire into that of being a patsy who did nothing wrong, and I think especially in the conversation that will happen going forward in the later 21st century surrounding the crimes of colonialism, we need to anticipate that and be frank and honest about the role we played
Who has ever claimed Scotland suffered in the same way a colony did? Is the crux of this point that you are conflating being slave with being part of the Union?
I think we definitely need to have that as part of our history classes, and perhaps modern studies classes. Scotland's place in the colonising, slaveowning world. However, a massive segment of this should highlight what kind of Scots were the slaveowners/traders, particularly their class and wealth, and how that relates to modern day. Because yes we can have a history lesson about what Scotland did, and how today we should remember and make reparations, but history's best use is to teach us about how to act today, or to notice similar patterns from the past. So we can see how these people/companies exploited the lower/slave classes, and how best to deal with similar situations today.
I am in no doubt that there are larger British (possibly Scottish but I couldn't name any that come to mind) companies that participate in the modern slave trade. There is too much money up for grabs.
Lol at the irony.
This post is historically illiterate.
Read Professor Tom Devine, then edit your post.
Is this meant to be a satire comment on the idiots who spout this shit? ‘Cause I genuinely can’t tell this time ‘round
Tom Devine is best friends with Alex Salmond, just double checking that’s who you’re choosing to reference here?
Professor Tom Devine formerly of Edinburgh University. I think he held the Fraser Chair of History. Previously at Aberdeen Uni and before that Strathclyde.
Published dozens of best selling books on Scotland's history.
Widely recognised by people of all poliitciaal persuasions as being the foremost historian alive in Scotland and of the last few generations.
Yes, I'm suggesting you cite Prof Tom Devine yes.
Out of curiosity, what evidence do you have Devine is best pals with Salmond? Even if this is true, so what? What's your point?
Definitely agree that Scotland (and for that matter Wales) needs to recognise their role in colonialism. Simultaneously, as Akala put it "the first enslaved were the working class."
All the Scottish people who owned slaves have been dead for well over 100 years.
Stop this sins of the father bullshit.
After the UK passed the act banning slavery, it took out a loan worth £300 billion in todays money. All of that, went directly to slave owners, none of it to slaves or former colonies.
We stole £45 trillion during the colonial rule of India, taking it from one of the richest countries on earth, to one which was destitute.
Just 120 years ago, we rounded up people and placed them in horrific concentration camps in the Boer War. All of these things still deeply impact the world we live in today. We live in a world shaped hugely by the scars of colonialism.
There are Benin bronzes stolen during the looting and burning of the city, in Kelvingrove. I don’t think it’s okay for us just to say that because the cultural scar we caused doesn’t affect us, it can be relegated to the past.
How can it be history when we still celebrate the men who committed these crimes on our street signs? When the man who invented concentration camps has a statue in Kelvingrove park?
All of the people who did all of that are dead, all of them.
So why the fuck should we all be paying for shit that we had nothing to do with since we didn't even exist yet?
Fuck all that.
Love how folks refuse to work off their fathers sins but are happy to take the profits they raised sinning
Except the people who reaped the profits… also died hundreds of years ago? What exactly do you suggest as recompense? Any sort of financial repayment would come out of Taxpayer pockets, a majority of whom had absolutely nothing to do with slavery
By all means, suggest a punishment for 5 Million for the sins of perhaps a few hundred, see how well that argument fares with the people
Its worth remembering that in the colonial period many Scottish people were actually enslaved. Lets also not forget that an actual genocide was carried out in the Highlands which resulted in the sale of many Scots into indentured servitude.
And Scots miners were *legally* Serfs until 1775. :O
Because Barbados took millions in Chinese money.
What’s wrong with Chinese money? We take American money?
The irony of demanding more acceptance of knowledge about history while demonstrating a singular lack of knowledge about history
Nice job OP. Quality irony
Why is GBeebies Neil Oliver posting here?
I’m sorry if you think I have anything in common with that handkerchief wearing, yacht sailing, conspiracy theorist cunt, then like, I’m sorry but you must have no grasp of what the political spectrum is? I’m literally a Marxist, I’d sell crack before I went on GB News
I respect Neil Oliver's right to wear a handkerchief.
Take that back you sorry c*nt.
Fair do’s as someone whose Queer, I’m not really in a position to critique anyone’s handkerchief wearing
Your rants read exactly like something GBeebies star Neil Oliver would type.
Hang on you were insulting Neil Oliver & now you’re saying he’s well written? Wouldnae be me
Try again Neil.
Please, and I mean this quite genuinely, seek medical help, because I don’t even know what you’re on about with this fucking patter, but it’s absolutely shite
>Please, and I mean this quite genuinely, seek medical help...
The irony of you typing this Neil after your most recent of nonsense rants is not missed on anyone. Off you pop you wee angry anti-vaxxer.
No, we don't. Not in those loaded and dubious terms.
You are at it. 'We' have no such future 'responsibility' just as English folk of today have no 'responsibility' for "The Rough Wooing" and a hundred and one other incursions or past invasions of Scotland and the deaths, misery, theft and destruction which followed.
You last name isn't Oliver, is it?
Is your name stairheid cause you’ve taken a bad fall? Because the fact you think Neil Oliver would have a Marxist perspective seems to suggest so
If you think the common folks of Scotland didn't suffer massively over the years due to our neighbours to the south, you need to do more reading.
I don't think anyone has claimed it was the same as the horrors committed by the likes of the Dutch nor has anyone claimed that Scotland is entirely blameless in history. It just isn't that relevant, we geneally don't go on about having our entire culture purged and destroyed.
So not really sure what your point is.
I don’t know, I think like in terms of it being relevant, the UK is almost unique in the fact it’s never had a ‘truth & reconciliation commission’ like Belgium or France so once we become independent, I’d really like us to break from that sort of culture of denial that persists within the UK, and I understand that Scottish culture was to a large part destroyed, but as people more well read than me have said in this thread, a large part (and I know the English did hideous things to try and stamp out Gaelic) but a lot of it, was Scottish lords being seduced by the money & culture in the south & stamping out their own indigenous culture
As a country, we need to acknowledge that we were participants in, not victims of, English/British colonialism, otherwise we'll be blinded by delusions of being something which we are not.
This was exactly my original intended point
And unfortunately, lots of people on this thread are taking it to mean "we are individually responsible for the horrors of British colonialism". Which is of course nonsense. However, we have to recognise that the lives we live and the relative access to material resources and luxuries we have is fundamentally incomparable to the nations who fell victim to British colonialism (such as Barbados). Just because some of our individual ancestors weren't responsible for colonialism, doesn't mean that we aren't beneficiaries of our colonial history.
It's fair to say we were both victims and participants.
What does facing up to our historical responsibility entail?
I think just regular old “literacy” would be a huge benefit, especially for this sub.
Getting mega Neil Oliver vibes from you mate.
Parcel of rouges what done it.
We had a failed attempt at colonialism due to harsh penalties put on ports to block scottish ships and countries being blocked to do trade with scotland. We had to expand out further and it bankrupted us. It was either a slow painful bankruptcy or one last try at winning. We obviously know how it ended now.
We ended up in the union as the English were blocking our ports, stopped imports into England and told the Lords there lands in the south would be taken away from them it was a forced union. They even had a spy up here handing out propaganda.
In regards to colonialism remember Scots were still insalved and sent across the sea aswell. Yes we have had our fair share of slavery and at least the goverment and actions are getting taken in Scotland to face this truth.
Mate like you sound like the Scottish version of an American insisting the civil war was about ‘states rights’ like I didn’t say the Scottish public agreed to it at first, there was riots in Edinburgh for weeks after it was announced, but the reason, that every historian agrees on, is because the Scottish lords wiped out 25/50% of the Scottish Economy trying to settle the most inhospitable bit of land in South America.
It’s ridiculous like insane, to compare the treatment of Scots who were press ganged into the Navy to that of slaves. Don’t get me wrong the Highland clearances were legitimately horrific, but they were Scottish lords committing crimes against Scottish peasants.
The treatment Scots faced wasn’t anywhere in any way similar to the torturous hell the Scots who went abroad reigned down on enslaved people. The life expectancy on a Scottish plantation was like 4 fucking years, 4 years that’s insanity.
There’s a reason Scotland never rose up during the early 20th century like so many actual colonies, we were never brutalised in the same way. Just look at the treatment of Ireland compared to us, during the Irish famine, the Prime Minister said they should just let them all starve to death so it could be repopulated with British people. Like nothing like that ever, ever happened to Scotland, like it’s just actual whataboutery of a the actual highest level
Dude I'm not saying it's on the same level no, I'm stating that Scots where bought and paid for as slaves to the americas as well as the Irish. I've lived in Ireland I know what happend I've seen the mass graves of the famin but at the same time we were going through the same shit in the highlands that used to be the most populated area in Scotland a whole culture wiped out.
I'm not saying it's on the same par but history is not back and white as its liked to be made out. The Scottish goverment and organisations been looking into this in regards to slavery and what they can do to rectafy it in the modern times. They aee not shying away from it. I think we live in a country that are owning up to the fact of our involvement with the slave trade. Changing street names, giving money back to help. This is all occurring. I'm not disagreeing with you but adding point to think about 👍
What happened in the highlands isn’t the same as what happened in Ireland, like the people who were forced out of there homes & the people who’s culture was destroyed those crimes were committed by other Scottish people more interested in money than human lives.
But I wasn’t meaning to he aggressive and I totally agree that like all those measures the Scottish government are taking like renaming street signs, acknowledging historical links & reparations are all really good
We have no historical responsibility.
We don't owe. We are not owed. Move forward.
It is very odd that in the days that follow Tories dropping points in opinion polls and BoJo even getting "hammered" by Sir Keith Haircut, that these random SNPBad / Scotland Bad posts seem to crop up.
Today we have seen Sturgeon having to resign as she has not followed up IndyRef2 in her time in power. We have read questions on why Scotland has more cases of the Omicron variant of Covid than England despite this being a little over a week since the first cases were discovered, and despite England having more cases than Scotland. And now we read about how Scotland should not want / is not able to be an Independent country as when Scotland tried to set up a Colony back in the 1690's it failed.
I’m literally a Gay Marxist who supports an Independent Socialist Republic of Scotland.
I think Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP are neoliberal hawks. But I support independence.
You didn’t like getting told your patter what shite, so you thought you’d have another go. You’re like a wee scared old woman seeing conspiracies around every corner.
Do you think the immense mechanisms of the British state, get on here and talk about Scotlands (and Englands) colonial war crimes? Delusional.
He’s one of the users that consistently cannot engage in good faith. Goes from thread to thread declaring anyone that disagrees with them is paid to do so.
Best to ignore them, definitely not a healthy person.
>Goes from thread to thread declaring anyone that disagrees with them is paid to do so.
Nope. Best to correct you right there. Thanks.
Every single thread you declare other users “Union Unit”. You’ve done so to multiple users in this one.
What I said is absolutely correct.
I made no mention of people being paid. Please try to be accurate in your assertions, it may help you in the future.
Do you not understand what the “Union Unit” is, or even “shills”? You call users both in abundance, in every thread, including this one.
The plot twist is, he’s the Unionist shill all along, paid to be such an annoying fanny that he irritates people out of supporting independence
I understand both. Clearly. And clearly you don't.
[Union Unit](https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2021/feb/28/the-union-unit-inside-the-no-10-team-tasked-with-keeping-uk-together) is a paid team, [shill](https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/shill) refers to a paid worker.
As fun as it is watching you scrape the bottom of the stupid barrel, I genuinely do not think you are well so will leave it here.
By your own hyperlinked definition of shill:
>...**OR** to participate in an activity in order to persuade others to buy or participate.
Righto. Again, I am correct. Off you pop.
Edit; I love how many people get confused by what shills are, and then conflate them with paid shills. You could not make it up.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/feb/28/the-union-unit-inside-the-no-10-team-tasked-with-keeping-uk-together](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/feb/28/the-union-unit-inside-the-no-10-team-tasked-with-keeping-uk-together)**
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
>I’m literally a Gay Marxist who supports an Independent Socialist Republic of Scotland.
Good for you. No one cares about your ramblings.
>You didn’t like getting told your patter what shite, so you thought you’d have another go.
Another go at what? Pointing out all this guff? Haha.
>You think the immense mechanisms of the British state...
Calm doon Neil. That is a bit above your station!
It's your choice, the people of scotland
I personally have never met a Scottish nationalist who thinks Scotland ddn't participate in the crimes of empire. (And I've met a few.)
In fact I would say it's British nationalists who are more likely to engage in historical revisionism - like that the Raj was all some humanitarian effort to provide railways to India, or the empire existed to "civilise" its subjects.
Of course challenge this attitude if you meet it but the idea it's mainstream in the indy movement is bonkers, and probably counterproductive.
Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t disagree that British nationalism was more prone to historical revisionism it’s their favourite pastime. But the point I was trying to make is when people make the statement ‘oh Scotland is a colony’ whether they realise it or not, I think they’re diminishing the role Scotland played in helping operate colonies across the world, that’s all I meant. I wasn’t suggesting there’s like widespread mass revisionism in the Indy movement
Scottish slaveholders appointed by the British Empire ? - doing London’s dirty work
I agree there were lots of Scots happy to oversee slave trade in the far flung parts of Empire and terrible, terrible things went on but why should Scotland specifically acknowledge this and not large profiteering sovereign nations like England, Portugal, Spain or the indeed the Nordic nations or Rome for that matter ? - like to see a lot more guilt and acknowledgement all round
Further to that you are asking largely the offspring of the people who did not settle in far flung places of Empire - we are the people *who stayed* - not to mention Scotland as sovereign country never existed - it wasn’t a collective it was 19% (at that time) of larger country aka the UK
I think realistically those Scots, English and Welsh who left to oversee colonial holdings did it to find profit for themselves and their own families, I don’t think London had a notion it was ‘dirty work’ I think at the time they were extremely proud of it.
I agree, obviously larger nations who profited hugely like France, Spain, Portugal should be held to account in the largest way as proportion for their colonial crimes. I just think it’s more difficult for Scotland because we have to peal our own crimes away from those of the UK, and that’s not an exclusively Scottish problem, for example Austria, Hungary & Belgium, Netherlands.
But ultimately I don’t think it’s helpful for us as an independence movement to sort of cry that we’re a colony because it is just disingenuous to those places we did actually help brutalise. I think while we may be the descendants of the people who didn’t leave, they still benefited from the fact Scotland got fat from the profits of colonialism
London did eventually come to understand it was dirty work (as it abolished slavery) as if its hierarchy handling the overseers didn’t already know (which I don’t believe) - of course they didn’t get their hands as dirty directly as the local overseers so had some deniability but the money washed through London and Londons financial sector is built on labour and raw materials from all over the world - first slave labour and then cheap labour - there are no Oil fields or Diamond mines in Central London or people extracting only figures on a spreadsheet but behind those figures was exploitation and theft
How Scotland as a country or collective profited was *random* much like trickle down reliant on the whim of the elite somewhere else and of the few that moved back to Scotland, invested in Scotland or were based in Scotland they left private wealth and now ageing property
When they abolished slavery though that wasn't a choice made from above, it was a moral choice pushed by labour movements, freed people of colour and liberal MPs. By the time it was abolished everyone in London and all over the world had spent 200 years getting fat from the profits of slavery, they were all dirty, there were no clean men. Don't get me wrong I agree of course that London is a Ponzi scheme built on the backs of Labour. However, I don't think there was any grand conspiracy to attempt to leave Scottish people looking bad for having misstreated slaves more than English people.
Of course, I agree with you, Scots effectively being at the behest of billionaires like Andrew Carnegie throughout the Victorian period to build libraries and the like in Scotland. But I also think its more complex, one of the reasons I think Scotland stayed happy in the Union throughout the Victorian period, is they got three huge bridges, Glasgow exploded, Scotland reaped the wealth of the empire during that period far more than it ever did with the wealth of London in the 20th century. Ultimately, I think what you're kind of critiquing there is like the global capitalist system dragging profits out of Scotland, rather than like any reason why we shouldn't acknowledge the part Scotland played in the bloody past of some countries.
I don’t know the timelines but they did eventually give up slavery perhaps all too late too but a tacit admission this could not go on
Scotland played a part for sure but not as a Sovereign country or conscious collective more as individual profiteering agents of Empire as part of the UK which was majority controlled by Westminster and England with 80%+ seats
Actually when you sell your power in the way it was sold in 1707 (elites sold Scotland for market access and survival) then you do actually give up some responsibility - as they say “with great power comes great responsibility” - paid the cost to be the boss !
Its not a complete get out of jail free to say well Scotland was not a Sovereign country and had a small share of power sure but it is partial deniability just like financiers in London who never asked where the money came from - but ultimately the Empire and those recruiting Scots overseers had to know something
There's a conspiracy theory out there that English nobles convinced us to invest in colonisation which in turn indebted us and we had no other choice then join in the Act of the Union.
Is it mad I can kinda believe some of that?
Either way, we have a dark history and shouldn't bury it. Colonialism bad.
You haven't heard the last of Barbados Slim...
OPs not talking about independence, he's doing about becoming a republic, Barbados has been independent for 60 years but only know are they removing the queen as head of state.