Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
I hate to be picky when you have (for once) said something vaguely positive about a place I live in...
...but the industrial Revolution was Shropshire rather than Staffordshire.
Conservatism is in an ideological trough globally, as it’s allowed itself to be nothing more than a platform for culture-war-mongering behind which rapacious rentiers, monopolists and unearned privilege can hide.
More the natural pendulum, it dominated most of the last decade
On the last dregs of monetarism and fiscal sobriety.
Now it’s even given up that.
As you’ve often suggested yourself, there’s nothing left now except a fetishistic, bordering on malevolent, desire to protect wealth - esp. the unearned kind.
Johnson and Morrison in 2019, Trump in 2016, even Merkel in 2013 and 2017, did not win on 'the last dregs of monetarism and fiscal sobriety.'
Plus on current polls for the Spanish and Italian elections next year the right is ahead in both nations, on a populist platform in the latter particularly
I was working with a woman today who was eulogising Johnson. A young (circa 30) blueish white collar type West Midlander.
I agree with you that for some bizarre reason Johnson personally holds sway over RedWall voters. They love him irrespective of what the polls say. The question in, by holding on to them is he sacrificing the Blue Wall?
Did you ask her what on earth the attraction is?
No. I was a little discombobulated that he still retains any fans, but she was quite serious.
Conservatism is in an ideological trough globally, as it’s allowed itself to be nothing more than a platform for culture-war-mongering behind which rapacious rentiers, monopolists and unearned privilege can hide.
More the natural pendulum, it dominated most of the last decade
On the last dregs of monetarism and fiscal sobriety.
Now it’s even given up that.
As you’ve often suggested yourself, there’s nothing left now except a fetishistic, bordering on malevolent, desire to protect wealth - esp. the unearned kind.
Johnson and Morrison in 2019, Trump in 2016, even Merkel in 2013 and 2017, did not win on 'the last dregs of monetarism and fiscal sobriety.'
Plus on current polls for the Spanish and Italian elections next year the right is ahead in both nations, on a populist platform in the latter particularly
I was working with a woman today who was eulogising Johnson. A young (circa 30) blueish white collar type West Midlander.
I agree with you that for some bizarre reason Johnson personally holds sway over RedWall voters. They love him irrespective of what the polls say. The question in, by holding on to them is he sacrificing the Blue Wall?
Conservatism is in an ideological trough globally, as it’s allowed itself to be nothing more than a platform for culture-war-mongering behind which rapacious rentiers, monopolists and unearned privilege can hide.
More the natural pendulum, it dominated most of the last decade
On the last dregs of monetarism and fiscal sobriety.
Now it’s even given up that.
As you’ve often suggested yourself, there’s nothing left now except a fetishistic, bordering on malevolent, desire to protect wealth - esp. the unearned kind.
Johnson and Morrison in 2019, Trump in 2016, even Merkel in 2013 and 2017, did not win on 'the last dregs of monetarism and fiscal sobriety.'
Plus on current polls for the Spanish and Italian elections next year the right is ahead in both nations, on a populist platform in the latter particularly
I was working with a woman today who was eulogising Johnson. A young (circa 30) blueish white collar type West Midlander.
I agree with you that for some bizarre reason Johnson personally holds sway over RedWall voters. They love him irrespective of what the polls say. The question in, by holding on to them is he sacrificing the Blue Wall?
Did you ask her what on earth the attraction is?
No. I was a little discombobulated that he still retains any fans, but she was quite serious.
Conservatism is in an ideological trough globally, as it’s allowed itself to be nothing more than a platform for culture-war-mongering behind which rapacious rentiers, monopolists and unearned privilege can hide.
More the natural pendulum, it dominated most of the last decade
On the last dregs of monetarism and fiscal sobriety.
Now it’s even given up that.
As you’ve often suggested yourself, there’s nothing left now except a fetishistic, bordering on malevolent, desire to protect wealth - esp. the unearned kind.
Johnson and Morrison in 2019, Trump in 2016, even Merkel in 2013 and 2017, did not win on 'the last dregs of monetarism and fiscal sobriety.'
Plus on current polls for the Spanish and Italian elections next year the right is ahead in both nations, on a populist platform in the latter particularly
I was working with a woman today who was eulogising Johnson. A young (circa 30) blueish white collar type West Midlander.
I agree with you that for some bizarre reason Johnson personally holds sway over RedWall voters. They love him irrespective of what the polls say. The question in, by holding on to them is he sacrificing the Blue Wall?
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
HAve a look again. For instance, the Tranent and Cockenzie Waggonway.
I’m sure some Scots had mastered the wheel by 1700 but that doesn’t alter the facts
England was a nascent superpower, with a puissant navy and a booming economy; if Scots had resisted union England would have invaded and conquered and enforced union, with an early form of The Tank, so as to close the back door to France. But probably it would never have come to that, as the canny Scots would have seen the benefits of uniting with such a rising power. And, indeed, Scots and Scotland did well out of the British Empire
I see you are unaware of such things as the Carron Ironworks, for instance, and the concentration of coal, limestone, and blackband iron ore in the Central Belt. Industry would undoubtedly have developed in parallel with the Shropshire developments, and did: after all, the Scots didn;t suffer the penalty of the English university system (remember: it was Quakers and Nonconformists in ENgland who were crucial). It's sad to see you so proud of threats of invasion and economic blockade and suppression, as if they somehow glorified the union.
It’s realpolitik
England was becoming a greatly powerful country; an independent Scotland would have been a major irritant if not a threat, so England would have moved to eliminate the problem, with a mixture of bribes and bullying. This is what happened in 1707 but if it hadn’t happened then it would have happened after
If the roles were reversed do you imagine for a second Scotland, the senior and greater power, would not have done the same to England? Would Scotland have been uniquely moral amongst the nations? Pff
England was *not* greatly powerful.That was the point. It was a frightened, stupid, muddled, thuggish bully which lashed out. Scotland was not a threat, except insofar as the English had imported an alien dynasty and insisted thsat the Scots should also conform.
Your second point is irrelevant. "It's all your fault for being smaller than me" - the classic whine of the bully at his victim through the ages.
Another instance to ponder: the crucial thermodynamic and chemical insights of the 18th century, on whjich the industrial revolution were founded, were in part mediated by research at Scottish universities. And later. Why do you think the SI units for work output, energy, temperature, capacitance, and so on are named after Scots and after English nonconformists (i.e. those who worked against the flow of English established society?
A key part of the Scottish early industrialisation was the Scottish support of universal education, well in advance of the rest of these islands, driven by Calvinist ideas of the importance of work and study. This created a skilled workforce and some of the best universities in Europe.
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
HAve a look again. For instance, the Tranent and Cockenzie Waggonway.
I’m sure some Scots had mastered the wheel by 1700 but that doesn’t alter the facts
England was a nascent superpower, with a puissant navy and a booming economy; if Scots had resisted union England would have invaded and conquered and enforced union, with an early form of The Tank, so as to close the back door to France. But probably it would never have come to that, as the canny Scots would have seen the benefits of uniting with such a rising power. And, indeed, Scots and Scotland did well out of the British Empire
I see you are unaware of such things as the Carron Ironworks, for instance, and the concentration of coal, limestone, and blackband iron ore in the Central Belt. Industry would undoubtedly have developed in parallel with the Shropshire developments, and did: after all, the Scots didn;t suffer the penalty of the English university system (remember: it was Quakers and Nonconformists in ENgland who were crucial). It's sad to see you so proud of threats of invasion and economic blockade and suppression, as if they somehow glorified the union.
It’s realpolitik
England was becoming a greatly powerful country; an independent Scotland would have been a major irritant if not a threat, so England would have moved to eliminate the problem, with a mixture of bribes and bullying. This is what happened in 1707 but if it hadn’t happened then it would have happened after
If the roles were reversed do you imagine for a second Scotland, the senior and greater power, would not have done the same to England? Would Scotland have been uniquely moral amongst the nations? Pff
England was *not* greatly powerful.That was the point. It was a frightened, stupid, muddled, thuggish bully which lashed out. Scotland was not a threat, except insofar as the English had imported an alien dynasty and insisted thsat the Scots should also conform.
Your second point is irrelevant. "It's all your fault for being smaller than me" - the classic whine of the bully at his victim through the ages.
Another instance to ponder: the crucial thermodynamic and chemical insights of the 18th century, on whjich the industrial revolution were founded, were in part mediated by research at Scottish universities. And later. Why do you think the SI units for work output, energy, temperature, capacitance, and so on are named after Scots and after English nonconformists (i.e. those who worked against the flow of English established society?
The inferiority complex on display here is off the dial. And I used to consider you one of the saner Nats. Lol
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
HAve a look again. For instance, the Tranent and Cockenzie Waggonway.
I’m sure some Scots had mastered the wheel by 1700 but that doesn’t alter the facts
England was a nascent superpower, with a puissant navy and a booming economy; if Scots had resisted union England would have invaded and conquered and enforced union, with an early form of The Tank, so as to close the back door to France. But probably it would never have come to that, as the canny Scots would have seen the benefits of uniting with such a rising power. And, indeed, Scots and Scotland did well out of the British Empire
I see you are unaware of such things as the Carron Ironworks, for instance, and the concentration of coal, limestone, and blackband iron ore in the Central Belt. Industry would undoubtedly have developed in parallel with the Shropshire developments, and did: after all, the Scots didn;t suffer the penalty of the English university system (remember: it was Quakers and Nonconformists in ENgland who were crucial). It's sad to see you so proud of threats of invasion and economic blockade and suppression, as if they somehow glorified the union.
It’s realpolitik
England was becoming a greatly powerful country; an independent Scotland would have been a major irritant if not a threat, so England would have moved to eliminate the problem, with a mixture of bribes and bullying. This is what happened in 1707 but if it hadn’t happened then it would have happened after
If the roles were reversed do you imagine for a second Scotland, the senior and greater power, would not have done the same to England? Would Scotland have been uniquely moral amongst the nations? Pff
England was *not* greatly powerful.That was the point. It was a frightened, stupid, muddled, thuggish bully which lashed out. Scotland was not a threat, except insofar as the English had imported an alien dynasty and insisted thsat the Scots should also conform.
Your second point is irrelevant. "It's all your fault for being smaller than me" - the classic whine of the bully at his victim through the ages.
Another instance to ponder: the crucial thermodynamic and chemical insights of the 18th century, on whjich the industrial revolution were founded, were in part mediated by research at Scottish universities. And later. Why do you think the SI units for work output, energy, temperature, capacitance, and so on are named after Scots and after English nonconformists (i.e. those who worked against the flow of English established society?
The inferiority complex on display here is off the dial. And I used to consider you one of the saner Nats. Lol
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
Not in 1710. Abraham Darby the Elder was only just starting his experiments then.
Water powered silk mill in Derby in late 17C perhaps.
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
HAve a look again. For instance, the Tranent and Cockenzie Waggonway.
I’m sure some Scots had mastered the wheel by 1700 but that doesn’t alter the facts
England was a nascent superpower, with a puissant navy and a booming economy; if Scots had resisted union England would have invaded and conquered and enforced union, with an early form of The Tank, so as to close the back door to France. But probably it would never have come to that, as the canny Scots would have seen the benefits of uniting with such a rising power. And, indeed, Scots and Scotland did well out of the British Empire
I see you are unaware of such things as the Carron Ironworks, for instance, and the concentration of coal, limestone, and blackband iron ore in the Central Belt. Industry would undoubtedly have developed in parallel with the Shropshire developments, and did: after all, the Scots didn;t suffer the penalty of the English university system (remember: it was Quakers and Nonconformists in ENgland who were crucial). It's sad to see you so proud of threats of invasion and economic blockade and suppression, as if they somehow glorified the union.
It’s realpolitik
England was becoming a greatly powerful country; an independent Scotland would have been a major irritant if not a threat, so England would have moved to eliminate the problem, with a mixture of bribes and bullying. This is what happened in 1707 but if it hadn’t happened then it would have happened after
If the roles were reversed do you imagine for a second Scotland, the senior and greater power, would not have done the same to England? Would Scotland have been uniquely moral amongst the nations? Pff
England was *not* greatly powerful.That was the point. It was a frightened, stupid, muddled, thuggish bully which lashed out. Scotland was not a threat, except insofar as the English had imported an alien dynasty and insisted thsat the Scots should also conform.
Your second point is irrelevant. "It's all your fault for being smaller than me" - the classic whine of the bully at his victim through the ages.
Another instance to ponder: the crucial thermodynamic and chemical insights of the 18th century, on whjich the industrial revolution were founded, were in part mediated by research at Scottish universities. And later. Why do you think the SI units for work output, energy, temperature, capacitance, and so on are named after Scots and after English nonconformists (i.e. those who worked against the flow of English established society?
A key part of the Scottish early industrialisation was the Scottish support of universal education, well in advance of the rest of these islands, driven by Calvinist ideas of the importance of work and study. This created a skilled workforce and some of the best universities in Europe.
Quite. And the English nonconformists too - especially those excluded from the gentlemanly mainstream (universities, C of E, government sinecures). Hence Shropshire. There are some very interesting interplays between the work ethic and the very ideas of work, efficiency and output. Watt, Kelvin (later), Joule, Faraday and so on.
South Carolina: https://twitter.com/ABCNews4/status/1542931041723326466 The state now asks abortion providers to send sheriff's offices reports of women who were impregnated by rape or incest and are trying to terminate the pregnancy
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
HAve a look again. For instance, the Tranent and Cockenzie Waggonway.
I’m sure some Scots had mastered the wheel by 1700 but that doesn’t alter the facts
England was a nascent superpower, with a puissant navy and a booming economy; if Scots had resisted union England would have invaded and conquered and enforced union, with an early form of The Tank, so as to close the back door to France. But probably it would never have come to that, as the canny Scots would have seen the benefits of uniting with such a rising power. And, indeed, Scots and Scotland did well out of the British Empire
I see you are unaware of such things as the Carron Ironworks, for instance, and the concentration of coal, limestone, and blackband iron ore in the Central Belt. Industry would undoubtedly have developed in parallel with the Shropshire developments, and did: after all, the Scots didn;t suffer the penalty of the English university system (remember: it was Quakers and Nonconformists in ENgland who were crucial). It's sad to see you so proud of threats of invasion and economic blockade and suppression, as if they somehow glorified the union.
It’s realpolitik
England was becoming a greatly powerful country; an independent Scotland would have been a major irritant if not a threat, so England would have moved to eliminate the problem, with a mixture of bribes and bullying. This is what happened in 1707 but if it hadn’t happened then it would have happened after
If the roles were reversed do you imagine for a second Scotland, the senior and greater power, would not have done the same to England? Would Scotland have been uniquely moral amongst the nations? Pff
England was *not* greatly powerful.That was the point. It was a frightened, stupid, muddled, thuggish bully which lashed out. Scotland was not a threat, except insofar as the English had imported an alien dynasty and insisted thsat the Scots should also conform.
Your second point is irrelevant. "It's all your fault for being smaller than me" - the classic whine of the bully at his victim through the ages.
Another instance to ponder: the crucial thermodynamic and chemical insights of the 18th century, on whjich the industrial revolution were founded, were in part mediated by research at Scottish universities. And later. Why do you think the SI units for work output, energy, temperature, capacitance, and so on are named after Scots and after English nonconformists (i.e. those who worked against the flow of English established society?
The inferiority complex on display here is off the dial. And I used to consider you one of the saner Nats. Lol
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
HAve a look again. For instance, the Tranent and Cockenzie Waggonway.
I’m sure some Scots had mastered the wheel by 1700 but that doesn’t alter the facts
England was a nascent superpower, with a puissant navy and a booming economy; if Scots had resisted union England would have invaded and conquered and enforced union, with an early form of The Tank, so as to close the back door to France. But probably it would never have come to that, as the canny Scots would have seen the benefits of uniting with such a rising power. And, indeed, Scots and Scotland did well out of the British Empire
Certainly the English Caribbean slave and sugar economy was established by 1710, and Scotland wanted its share of that bonanza, hence the Darien scheme.
OH, quite so. But so did much of Europe, not that that is any justification. And they didn't feel thje need for enosis with England.
But what Scotland lacked in 1710 was not natural resources or skilled workers, but rather access to capital and trade routes.
Cromwells suppression of the Dutch meant that England had become the major trading power, at least in Protestant Europe. The nautical, sugar, and Indian trade had generated the capital markets and trade routes that were the opportunity for Scottish business. It was that convergence that created the Eighteenth Century convergence of Scottish and English interests.
Obviously things have moved on somewhat over the three centuries.
Depends how you define a “millionaire”. How hard, in the South certainly, and in other places too, is reach over £1m in ALL assets by 65, after twenty years of massive house price inflation?
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
HAve a look again. For instance, the Tranent and Cockenzie Waggonway.
I’m sure some Scots had mastered the wheel by 1700 but that doesn’t alter the facts
England was a nascent superpower, with a puissant navy and a booming economy; if Scots had resisted union England would have invaded and conquered and enforced union, with an early form of The Tank, so as to close the back door to France. But probably it would never have come to that, as the canny Scots would have seen the benefits of uniting with such a rising power. And, indeed, Scots and Scotland did well out of the British Empire
I see you are unaware of such things as the Carron Ironworks, for instance, and the concentration of coal, limestone, and blackband iron ore in the Central Belt. Industry would undoubtedly have developed in parallel with the Shropshire developments, and did: after all, the Scots didn;t suffer the penalty of the English university system (remember: it was Quakers and Nonconformists in ENgland who were crucial). It's sad to see you so proud of threats of invasion and economic blockade and suppression, as if they somehow glorified the union.
It’s realpolitik
England was becoming a greatly powerful country; an independent Scotland would have been a major irritant if not a threat, so England would have moved to eliminate the problem, with a mixture of bribes and bullying. This is what happened in 1707 but if it hadn’t happened then it would have happened after
If the roles were reversed do you imagine for a second Scotland, the senior and greater power, would not have done the same to England? Would Scotland have been uniquely moral amongst the nations? Pff
England was *not* greatly powerful.That was the point. It was a frightened, stupid, muddled, thuggish bully which lashed out. Scotland was not a threat, except insofar as the English had imported an alien dynasty and insisted thsat the Scots should also conform.
Your second point is irrelevant. "It's all your fault for being smaller than me" - the classic whine of the bully at his victim through the ages.
Another instance to ponder: the crucial thermodynamic and chemical insights of the 18th century, on whjich the industrial revolution were founded, were in part mediated by research at Scottish universities. And later. Why do you think the SI units for work output, energy, temperature, capacitance, and so on are named after Scots and after English nonconformists (i.e. those who worked against the flow of English established society?
Scotland asked to join the Union because it was bankrupt after the Darien scheme.
Before the nations were frequently at War, indeed often by Scottish invasion of England as much as English invasion of Scotland
One in four pensioners is a millionaire, according to Eamonn Butler, Director of the Adam Smith Institute.
Do you believe that? I am dubious. In SE England maybe, but across the UK?
Don’t buy it
Well the ASI are a bunch of shady bastards but it’s a pretty black and white claim.
25% of Britons over 65 are millionaires?
Just doesn’t add up
According to Credit Suisse there are 2.5 million millionaires in the UK; meanwhile there are about 13m pensioners. 25% of 13m is 3.25m…
Something is missing
Is somebody who has assets of £1 million or more a millionaire?
Or is it someone who can raise £1 million in cash in short order?
If the first, many pensioners probably do qualify via their houses and the money underpinning their annuities. £3,000 a year in pension = £100,000 in savings. On that basis, my father is a millionaire.
If the second, you're clearly right to be sceptical.
For the record - it's the second, but Butler's probably using the first definition.
One in four pensioners is a millionaire, according to Eamonn Butler, Director of the Adam Smith Institute.
Do you believe that? I am dubious. In SE England maybe, but across the UK?
Don’t buy it
Well the ASI are a bunch of shady bastards but it’s a pretty black and white claim.
25% of Britons over 65 are millionaires?
Just doesn’t add up
According to Credit Suisse there are 2.5 million millionaires in the UK; meanwhile there are about 13m pensioners. 25% of 13m is 3.25m…
Something is missing
It is something that has been going on for a while
Readers have asked us to check a surprising figure in the Sunday Times Style supplement, that one in five over-65s in the UK is classified as a millionaire according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). This claim has been going around since the data was first published in 2019.
The truth is a bit more complex, and depends on what you count as a millionaire.
Data the ONS collected between 2016 and 2018 shows that one in five households (22%) in Great Britain, where the main householder (the person responsible for household finances) is over 65, have a household wealth of over a million pounds.
The data also shows that one in four people aged over 65 (25%) lived in a household with a total wealth of over a million pounds.
So a household with two 70-year-olds and a combined wealth of a million pounds would fall into these millionaire categories, but whether you’d class both as millionaires is arguably a matter of opinion, and depends on things such as whether they own the assets jointly or solely.
As the data is a bit old by now, you might expect more over 65s to live in millionaire households now than did a few years ago, given the proportion of households with wealth over a million pounds has increased over time.
And while the Sunday Times’s article brings up the statistic in the context of talking about the disposable income of the baby boomers, these figures aren’t about how much money people have in the bank.
The ONS’s definition doesn’t just include disposable financial wealth, but other forms of wealth such as property value and pension pots.
One in four pensioners is a millionaire, according to Eamonn Butler, Director of the Adam Smith Institute.
Do you believe that? I am dubious. In SE England maybe, but across the UK?
Don’t buy it
If you convert a final salary pension into a £ amount I could well believe that if it is just occupational pension holders. It's not all pensioners though.
South Carolina: https://twitter.com/ABCNews4/status/1542931041723326466 The state now asks abortion providers to send sheriff's offices reports of women who were impregnated by rape or incest and are trying to terminate the pregnancy
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
HAve a look again. For instance, the Tranent and Cockenzie Waggonway.
I’m sure some Scots had mastered the wheel by 1700 but that doesn’t alter the facts
England was a nascent superpower, with a puissant navy and a booming economy; if Scots had resisted union England would have invaded and conquered and enforced union, with an early form of The Tank, so as to close the back door to France. But probably it would never have come to that, as the canny Scots would have seen the benefits of uniting with such a rising power. And, indeed, Scots and Scotland did well out of the British Empire
I see you are unaware of such things as the Carron Ironworks, for instance, and the concentration of coal, limestone, and blackband iron ore in the Central Belt. Industry would undoubtedly have developed in parallel with the Shropshire developments, and did: after all, the Scots didn;t suffer the penalty of the English university system (remember: it was Quakers and Nonconformists in ENgland who were crucial). It's sad to see you so proud of threats of invasion and economic blockade and suppression, as if they somehow glorified the union.
It’s realpolitik
England was becoming a greatly powerful country; an independent Scotland would have been a major irritant if not a threat, so England would have moved to eliminate the problem, with a mixture of bribes and bullying. This is what happened in 1707 but if it hadn’t happened then it would have happened after
If the roles were reversed do you imagine for a second Scotland, the senior and greater power, would not have done the same to England? Would Scotland have been uniquely moral amongst the nations? Pff
England was *not* greatly powerful.That was the point. It was a frightened, stupid, muddled, thuggish bully which lashed out. Scotland was not a threat, except insofar as the English had imported an alien dynasty and insisted thsat the Scots should also conform.
Your second point is irrelevant. "It's all your fault for being smaller than me" - the classic whine of the bully at his victim through the ages.
Another instance to ponder: the crucial thermodynamic and chemical insights of the 18th century, on whjich the industrial revolution were founded, were in part mediated by research at Scottish universities. And later. Why do you think the SI units for work output, energy, temperature, capacitance, and so on are named after Scots and after English nonconformists (i.e. those who worked against the flow of English established society?
A key part of the Scottish early industrialisation was the Scottish support of universal education, well in advance of the rest of these islands, driven by Calvinist ideas of the importance of work and study. This created a skilled workforce and some of the best universities in Europe.
Quite. And the English nonconformists too - especially those excluded from the gentlemanly mainstream (universities, C of E, government sinecures). Hence Shropshire. There are some very interesting interplays between the work ethic and the very ideas of work, efficiency and output. Watt, Kelvin (later), Joule, Faraday and so on.
Nonconformists were banned from politics, church, army and university in England, at that time, so naturally expressed their ambitions in commerce and industry, once we were no longer persecuted.
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
HAve a look again. For instance, the Tranent and Cockenzie Waggonway.
I’m sure some Scots had mastered the wheel by 1700 but that doesn’t alter the facts
England was a nascent superpower, with a puissant navy and a booming economy; if Scots had resisted union England would have invaded and conquered and enforced union, with an early form of The Tank, so as to close the back door to France. But probably it would never have come to that, as the canny Scots would have seen the benefits of uniting with such a rising power. And, indeed, Scots and Scotland did well out of the British Empire
I see you are unaware of such things as the Carron Ironworks, for instance, and the concentration of coal, limestone, and blackband iron ore in the Central Belt. Industry would undoubtedly have developed in parallel with the Shropshire developments, and did: after all, the Scots didn;t suffer the penalty of the English university system (remember: it was Quakers and Nonconformists in ENgland who were crucial). It's sad to see you so proud of threats of invasion and economic blockade and suppression, as if they somehow glorified the union.
It’s realpolitik
England was becoming a greatly powerful country; an independent Scotland would have been a major irritant if not a threat, so England would have moved to eliminate the problem, with a mixture of bribes and bullying. This is what happened in 1707 but if it hadn’t happened then it would have happened after
If the roles were reversed do you imagine for a second Scotland, the senior and greater power, would not have done the same to England? Would Scotland have been uniquely moral amongst the nations? Pff
England was *not* greatly powerful.That was the point. It was a frightened, stupid, muddled, thuggish bully which lashed out. Scotland was not a threat, except insofar as the English had imported an alien dynasty and insisted thsat the Scots should also conform.
Your second point is irrelevant. "It's all your fault for being smaller than me" - the classic whine of the bully at his victim through the ages.
Another instance to ponder: the crucial thermodynamic and chemical insights of the 18th century, on whjich the industrial revolution were founded, were in part mediated by research at Scottish universities. And later. Why do you think the SI units for work output, energy, temperature, capacitance, and so on are named after Scots and after English nonconformists (i.e. those who worked against the flow of English established society?
Scotland asked to join the Union because it was bankrupt after the Darien scheme.
Before the nations were frequently at War, indeed often by Scottish invasion of England as much as English invasion of Scotland
It wasn't bankrupt - but some of the aristos were after Darien, hence the bribery.
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
HAve a look again. For instance, the Tranent and Cockenzie Waggonway.
I’m sure some Scots had mastered the wheel by 1700 but that doesn’t alter the facts
England was a nascent superpower, with a puissant navy and a booming economy; if Scots had resisted union England would have invaded and conquered and enforced union, with an early form of The Tank, so as to close the back door to France. But probably it would never have come to that, as the canny Scots would have seen the benefits of uniting with such a rising power. And, indeed, Scots and Scotland did well out of the British Empire
Certainly the English Caribbean slave and sugar economy was established by 1710, and Scotland wanted its share of that bonanza, hence the Darien scheme.
OH, quite so. But so did much of Europe, not that that is any justification. And they didn't feel thje need for enosis with England.
But what Scotland lacked in 1710 was not natural resources or skilled workers, but rather access to capital and trade routes.
Cromwells suppression of the Dutch meant that England had become the major trading power, at least in Protestant Europe. The nautical, sugar, and Indian trade had generated the capital markets and trade routes that were the opportunity for Scottish business. It was that convergence that created the Eighteenth Century convergence of Scottish and English interests.
Obviously things have moved on somewhat over the three centuries.
Capital was definitely an issue, but workers would have been an issue, too
Scotland’s population in 1700 was about 1m, England’s was about 5-6m
Scotland cannot naturally support a large population, it is too cold and wet and northerly (we see that even now). England is more fertile and can feed more people. It is that simple
Even if Scotland has managed to industrialise as fast as England and as powerfully, how would it have manned the factories?
It was never going to happen, some form of union with an ever-mightier England was inevitable. It is arguable that the peaceful union of 1707 was a lot better than some sanguinary English conquest 20-60 years down the line
South Carolina: https://twitter.com/ABCNews4/status/1542931041723326466 The state now asks abortion providers to send sheriff's offices reports of women who were impregnated by rape or incest and are trying to terminate the pregnancy
South Carolina: https://twitter.com/ABCNews4/status/1542931041723326466 The state now asks abortion providers to send sheriff's offices reports of women who were impregnated by rape or incest and are trying to terminate the pregnancy
Depends how you define a “millionaire”. How hard, in the South certainly, and in other places too, is reach over £1m in ALL assets by 65, after twenty years of massive house price inflation?
Surely do-able for 25%.
But barely anyone at all in the vast majority of the country. There are precious few £500k properties round here of any kind.
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
HAve a look again. For instance, the Tranent and Cockenzie Waggonway.
I’m sure some Scots had mastered the wheel by 1700 but that doesn’t alter the facts
England was a nascent superpower, with a puissant navy and a booming economy; if Scots had resisted union England would have invaded and conquered and enforced union, with an early form of The Tank, so as to close the back door to France. But probably it would never have come to that, as the canny Scots would have seen the benefits of uniting with such a rising power. And, indeed, Scots and Scotland did well out of the British Empire
Certainly the English Caribbean slave and sugar economy was established by 1710, and Scotland wanted its share of that bonanza, hence the Darien scheme.
OH, quite so. But so did much of Europe, not that that is any justification. And they didn't feel thje need for enosis with England.
But what Scotland lacked in 1710 was not natural resources or skilled workers, but rather access to capital and trade routes.
Cromwells suppression of the Dutch meant that England had become the major trading power, at least in Protestant Europe. The nautical, sugar, and Indian trade had generated the capital markets and trade routes that were the opportunity for Scottish business. It was that convergence that created the Eighteenth Century convergence of Scottish and English interests.
Obviously things have moved on somewhat over the three centuries.
Capital was definitely an issue, but workers would have been an issue, too
Scotland’s population in 1700 was about 1m, England’s was about 5-6m
Scotland cannot naturally support a large population, it is too cold and wet and northerly (we see that even now). England is more fertile and can feed more people. It is that simple
Even if Scotland has managed to industrialise as fast as England and as powerfully, how would it have manned the factories?
It was never going to happen, some form of union with an ever-mightier England was inevitable. It is arguable that the peaceful union of 1707 was a lot better than some sanguinary English conquest 20-60 years down the line
Slight problem with your logic. (a) massive Scottish investment in high farming during the 18th century = fewer farmworkers, more food (b) fewer people = fewer to feed
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
HAve a look again. For instance, the Tranent and Cockenzie Waggonway.
I’m sure some Scots had mastered the wheel by 1700 but that doesn’t alter the facts
England was a nascent superpower, with a puissant navy and a booming economy; if Scots had resisted union England would have invaded and conquered and enforced union, with an early form of The Tank, so as to close the back door to France. But probably it would never have come to that, as the canny Scots would have seen the benefits of uniting with such a rising power. And, indeed, Scots and Scotland did well out of the British Empire
I see you are unaware of such things as the Carron Ironworks, for instance, and the concentration of coal, limestone, and blackband iron ore in the Central Belt. Industry would undoubtedly have developed in parallel with the Shropshire developments, and did: after all, the Scots didn;t suffer the penalty of the English university system (remember: it was Quakers and Nonconformists in ENgland who were crucial). It's sad to see you so proud of threats of invasion and economic blockade and suppression, as if they somehow glorified the union.
It’s realpolitik
England was becoming a greatly powerful country; an independent Scotland would have been a major irritant if not a threat, so England would have moved to eliminate the problem, with a mixture of bribes and bullying. This is what happened in 1707 but if it hadn’t happened then it would have happened after
If the roles were reversed do you imagine for a second Scotland, the senior and greater power, would not have done the same to England? Would Scotland have been uniquely moral amongst the nations? Pff
England was *not* greatly powerful.That was the point. It was a frightened, stupid, muddled, thuggish bully which lashed out. Scotland was not a threat, except insofar as the English had imported an alien dynasty and insisted thsat the Scots should also conform.
Your second point is irrelevant. "It's all your fault for being smaller than me" - the classic whine of the bully at his victim through the ages.
Another instance to ponder: the crucial thermodynamic and chemical insights of the 18th century, on whjich the industrial revolution were founded, were in part mediated by research at Scottish universities. And later. Why do you think the SI units for work output, energy, temperature, capacitance, and so on are named after Scots and after English nonconformists (i.e. those who worked against the flow of English established society?
A key part of the Scottish early industrialisation was the Scottish support of universal education, well in advance of the rest of these islands, driven by Calvinist ideas of the importance of work and study. This created a skilled workforce and some of the best universities in Europe.
Quite. And the English nonconformists too - especially those excluded from the gentlemanly mainstream (universities, C of E, government sinecures). Hence Shropshire. There are some very interesting interplays between the work ethic and the very ideas of work, efficiency and output. Watt, Kelvin (later), Joule, Faraday and so on.
Nonconformists were banned from politics, church, army and university in England, at that time, so naturally expressed their ambitions in commerce and industry, once we were no longer persecuted.
Indeed. Rastrick made somewhat too strong claims for the Quakers, but the basic point is correct - the members of the Society of Friends had a disproportionate role in those areas, as did the Independents and the Presbyterians.
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
HAve a look again. For instance, the Tranent and Cockenzie Waggonway.
I’m sure some Scots had mastered the wheel by 1700 but that doesn’t alter the facts
England was a nascent superpower, with a puissant navy and a booming economy; if Scots had resisted union England would have invaded and conquered and enforced union, with an early form of The Tank, so as to close the back door to France. But probably it would never have come to that, as the canny Scots would have seen the benefits of uniting with such a rising power. And, indeed, Scots and Scotland did well out of the British Empire
Certainly the English Caribbean slave and sugar economy was established by 1710, and Scotland wanted its share of that bonanza, hence the Darien scheme.
OH, quite so. But so did much of Europe, not that that is any justification. And they didn't feel thje need for enosis with England.
But what Scotland lacked in 1710 was not natural resources or skilled workers, but rather access to capital and trade routes.
Cromwells suppression of the Dutch meant that England had become the major trading power, at least in Protestant Europe. The nautical, sugar, and Indian trade had generated the capital markets and trade routes that were the opportunity for Scottish business. It was that convergence that created the Eighteenth Century convergence of Scottish and English interests.
Obviously things have moved on somewhat over the three centuries.
Capital was definitely an issue, but workers would have been an issue, too
Scotland’s population in 1700 was about 1m, England’s was about 5-6m
Scotland cannot naturally support a large population, it is too cold and wet and northerly (we see that even now). England is more fertile and can feed more people. It is that simple
Even if Scotland has managed to industrialise as fast as England and as powerfully, how would it have manned the factories?
It was never going to happen, some form of union with an ever-mightier England was inevitable. It is arguable that the peaceful union of 1707 was a lot better than some sanguinary English conquest 20-60 years down the line
Slight problem with your logic. (a) massive Scottish investment in high farming during the 18th century = fewer farmworkers, more food (b) fewer people = fewer to feed
Indeed, there were no shortages of workers and throughout the period Scotland was a major exporter of its people, hence the worldwide diaspora including my antipodean Scottish roots.
South Carolina: https://twitter.com/ABCNews4/status/1542931041723326466 The state now asks abortion providers to send sheriff's offices reports of women who were impregnated by rape or incest and are trying to terminate the pregnancy
South Carolina: https://twitter.com/ABCNews4/status/1542931041723326466 The state now asks abortion providers to send sheriff's offices reports of women who were impregnated by rape or incest and are trying to terminate the pregnancy
South Carolina: https://twitter.com/ABCNews4/status/1542931041723326466 The state now asks abortion providers to send sheriff's offices reports of women who were impregnated by rape or incest and are trying to terminate the pregnancy
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
HAve a look again. For instance, the Tranent and Cockenzie Waggonway.
I’m sure some Scots had mastered the wheel by 1700 but that doesn’t alter the facts
England was a nascent superpower, with a puissant navy and a booming economy; if Scots had resisted union England would have invaded and conquered and enforced union, with an early form of The Tank, so as to close the back door to France. But probably it would never have come to that, as the canny Scots would have seen the benefits of uniting with such a rising power. And, indeed, Scots and Scotland did well out of the British Empire
Certainly the English Caribbean slave and sugar economy was established by 1710, and Scotland wanted its share of that bonanza, hence the Darien scheme.
OH, quite so. But so did much of Europe, not that that is any justification. And they didn't feel thje need for enosis with England.
But what Scotland lacked in 1710 was not natural resources or skilled workers, but rather access to capital and trade routes.
Cromwells suppression of the Dutch meant that England had become the major trading power, at least in Protestant Europe. The nautical, sugar, and Indian trade had generated the capital markets and trade routes that were the opportunity for Scottish business. It was that convergence that created the Eighteenth Century convergence of Scottish and English interests.
Obviously things have moved on somewhat over the three centuries.
Capital was definitely an issue, but workers would have been an issue, too
Scotland’s population in 1700 was about 1m, England’s was about 5-6m
Scotland cannot naturally support a large population, it is too cold and wet and northerly (we see that even now). England is more fertile and can feed more people. It is that simple
Even if Scotland has managed to industrialise as fast as England and as powerfully, how would it have manned the factories?
It was never going to happen, some form of union with an ever-mightier England was inevitable. It is arguable that the peaceful union of 1707 was a lot better than some sanguinary English conquest 20-60 years down the line
Slight problem with your logic. (a) massive Scottish investment in high farming during the 18th century = fewer farmworkers, more food (b) fewer people = fewer to feed
Crivvens, talk about missing the point
Factories in the 18th-19th centuries required huge amounts of manpower. Scotland simply did not possess that. There is a reason the Romans got as far as Hadrian’s Wall and then thought Fuck it, can’t be arsed (and that was in an age of kinder climates)
England as the naturally senior, older, greater power was always going to prevail in 1700. It casts no shame on Scotland to say it is perpetually destined to be inferior
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
I hate to be picky when you have (for once) said something vaguely positive about a place I live in...
...but the industrial Revolution was Shropshire rather than Staffordshire.
It looks like the big gas cutoff is underway. A perverse effect of sanctions is that Russia doesn't need the money because it can't spend it, so it might as well inflict maximum pain while it can.
South Carolina: https://twitter.com/ABCNews4/status/1542931041723326466 The state now asks abortion providers to send sheriff's offices reports of women who were impregnated by rape or incest and are trying to terminate the pregnancy
South Carolina: https://twitter.com/ABCNews4/status/1542931041723326466 The state now asks abortion providers to send sheriff's offices reports of women who were impregnated by rape or incest and are trying to terminate the pregnancy
i’ve never had an abortion but my access to healthcare has changed because Roe was overturned.
I have #Lupus which is an inflammatory autoimmune disease that causes my immune system to attack my organs, joints, skin, and muscles.
i take #Methotrexate as one of my treatments
i received an email from my rheumatologist today that they are stopping all refills of methotrexate because it is considered an abortifacient.
Methotrexate is a form of chemotherapy. But in reduced quantities it can be taken long term to help with many autoimmune diseases.
Roe was overturned 6 days ago. in less than one week i lost access to healthcare that i need because the drug could be used to induce abortions.
it took 144 hours for me to have less safe healthcare because Roe was overturned.
Don’t tell me you’re pro-life.
That does not automatically follow, it is possible to allow Methotrexate specifically to treat autoimmune diseases but not to induce abortions
It does very much follow. You would't get insurance if you are a doctor giving it to women of childbearing years.
Legally you could do, logically there is nothing contrary with not being able to apply it to women to induce abortions and being able to apply it to women with autoimmune diseases
South Carolina: https://twitter.com/ABCNews4/status/1542931041723326466 The state now asks abortion providers to send sheriff's offices reports of women who were impregnated by rape or incest and are trying to terminate the pregnancy
i’ve never had an abortion but my access to healthcare has changed because Roe was overturned.
I have #Lupus which is an inflammatory autoimmune disease that causes my immune system to attack my organs, joints, skin, and muscles.
i take #Methotrexate as one of my treatments
i received an email from my rheumatologist today that they are stopping all refills of methotrexate because it is considered an abortifacient.
Methotrexate is a form of chemotherapy. But in reduced quantities it can be taken long term to help with many autoimmune diseases.
Roe was overturned 6 days ago. in less than one week i lost access to healthcare that i need because the drug could be used to induce abortions.
it took 144 hours for me to have less safe healthcare because Roe was overturned.
Don’t tell me you’re pro-life.
That does not automatically follow, it is possible to allow Methotrexate specifically to treat autoimmune diseases but not to induce abortions
It does very much follow. You would't get insurance if you are a doctor giving it to women of childbearing years.
Legally you could do, logically there is nothing contrary with not being able to apply it to women to induce abortions and being able to apply it to women with autoimmune diseases
What if they have an autoimmune disease and are also pregnant?
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
HAve a look again. For instance, the Tranent and Cockenzie Waggonway.
I’m sure some Scots had mastered the wheel by 1700 but that doesn’t alter the facts
England was a nascent superpower, with a puissant navy and a booming economy; if Scots had resisted union England would have invaded and conquered and enforced union, with an early form of The Tank, so as to close the back door to France. But probably it would never have come to that, as the canny Scots would have seen the benefits of uniting with such a rising power. And, indeed, Scots and Scotland did well out of the British Empire
Certainly the English Caribbean slave and sugar economy was established by 1710, and Scotland wanted its share of that bonanza, hence the Darien scheme.
OH, quite so. But so did much of Europe, not that that is any justification. And they didn't feel thje need for enosis with England.
But what Scotland lacked in 1710 was not natural resources or skilled workers, but rather access to capital and trade routes.
Cromwells suppression of the Dutch meant that England had become the major trading power, at least in Protestant Europe. The nautical, sugar, and Indian trade had generated the capital markets and trade routes that were the opportunity for Scottish business. It was that convergence that created the Eighteenth Century convergence of Scottish and English interests.
Obviously things have moved on somewhat over the three centuries.
Capital was definitely an issue, but workers would have been an issue, too
Scotland’s population in 1700 was about 1m, England’s was about 5-6m
Scotland cannot naturally support a large population, it is too cold and wet and northerly (we see that even now). England is more fertile and can feed more people. It is that simple
Even if Scotland has managed to industrialise as fast as England and as powerfully, how would it have manned the factories?
It was never going to happen, some form of union with an ever-mightier England was inevitable. It is arguable that the peaceful union of 1707 was a lot better than some sanguinary English conquest 20-60 years down the line
Slight problem with your logic. (a) massive Scottish investment in high farming during the 18th century = fewer farmworkers, more food (b) fewer people = fewer to feed
Crivvens, talk about missing the point
Factories in the 18th-19th centuries required huge amounts of manpower. Scotland simply did not possess that. There is a reason the Romans got as far as Hadrian’s Wall and then thought Fuck it, can’t be arsed (and that was in an age of kinder climates)
England as the naturally senior, older, greater power was always going to prevail in 1700. It casts no shame on Scotland to say it is perpetually destined to be inferior
'senior' 'older' are historically wrong, but not relevant here anyway. So scratch that.
You're assuming that the Scottish economy would have developed as it did after union of the parliaments. Could have been quite different after 1707 if union had not happened. For instance, it was already - and remained - notably integrated with Scandinavia for a trade in iron and other products.
ANd as for your neo-imperialism, I will merely draw it to your attention, and leave you to consider it in the context of 2022 rather than a terrified London establishment of 1706.
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
HAve a look again. For instance, the Tranent and Cockenzie Waggonway.
I’m sure some Scots had mastered the wheel by 1700 but that doesn’t alter the facts
England was a nascent superpower, with a puissant navy and a booming economy; if Scots had resisted union England would have invaded and conquered and enforced union, with an early form of The Tank, so as to close the back door to France. But probably it would never have come to that, as the canny Scots would have seen the benefits of uniting with such a rising power. And, indeed, Scots and Scotland did well out of the British Empire
Certainly the English Caribbean slave and sugar economy was established by 1710, and Scotland wanted its share of that bonanza, hence the Darien scheme.
OH, quite so. But so did much of Europe, not that that is any justification. And they didn't feel thje need for enosis with England.
But what Scotland lacked in 1710 was not natural resources or skilled workers, but rather access to capital and trade routes.
Cromwells suppression of the Dutch meant that England had become the major trading power, at least in Protestant Europe. The nautical, sugar, and Indian trade had generated the capital markets and trade routes that were the opportunity for Scottish business. It was that convergence that created the Eighteenth Century convergence of Scottish and English interests.
Obviously things have moved on somewhat over the three centuries.
Capital was definitely an issue, but workers would have been an issue, too
Scotland’s population in 1700 was about 1m, England’s was about 5-6m
Scotland cannot naturally support a large population, it is too cold and wet and northerly (we see that even now). England is more fertile and can feed more people. It is that simple
Even if Scotland has managed to industrialise as fast as England and as powerfully, how would it have manned the factories?
It was never going to happen, some form of union with an ever-mightier England was inevitable. It is arguable that the peaceful union of 1707 was a lot better than some sanguinary English conquest 20-60 years down the line
Slight problem with your logic. (a) massive Scottish investment in high farming during the 18th century = fewer farmworkers, more food (b) fewer people = fewer to feed
Crivvens, talk about missing the point
Factories in the 18th-19th centuries required huge amounts of manpower. Scotland simply did not possess that. There is a reason the Romans got as far as Hadrian’s Wall and then thought Fuck it, can’t be arsed (and that was in an age of kinder climates)
England as the naturally senior, older, greater power was always going to prevail in 1700. It casts no shame on Scotland to say it is perpetually destined to be inferior
Romans got as far north as the Antonine Wall, actually.
South Carolina: https://twitter.com/ABCNews4/status/1542931041723326466 The state now asks abortion providers to send sheriff's offices reports of women who were impregnated by rape or incest and are trying to terminate the pregnancy
i’ve never had an abortion but my access to healthcare has changed because Roe was overturned.
I have #Lupus which is an inflammatory autoimmune disease that causes my immune system to attack my organs, joints, skin, and muscles.
i take #Methotrexate as one of my treatments
i received an email from my rheumatologist today that they are stopping all refills of methotrexate because it is considered an abortifacient.
Methotrexate is a form of chemotherapy. But in reduced quantities it can be taken long term to help with many autoimmune diseases.
Roe was overturned 6 days ago. in less than one week i lost access to healthcare that i need because the drug could be used to induce abortions.
it took 144 hours for me to have less safe healthcare because Roe was overturned.
Don’t tell me you’re pro-life.
That does not automatically follow, it is possible to allow Methotrexate specifically to treat autoimmune diseases but not to induce abortions
It does very much follow. You would't get insurance if you are a doctor giving it to women of childbearing years.
Legally you could do, logically there is nothing contrary with not being able to apply it to women to induce abortions and being able to apply it to women with autoimmune diseases
What if they have an autoimmune disease and are also pregnant?
That's the point being made by precisely the doctor quoted in this thread. You can't tell till it's too late. HYUFD should think about that ...
South Carolina: https://twitter.com/ABCNews4/status/1542931041723326466 The state now asks abortion providers to send sheriff's offices reports of women who were impregnated by rape or incest and are trying to terminate the pregnancy
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
HAve a look again. For instance, the Tranent and Cockenzie Waggonway.
I’m sure some Scots had mastered the wheel by 1700 but that doesn’t alter the facts
England was a nascent superpower, with a puissant navy and a booming economy; if Scots had resisted union England would have invaded and conquered and enforced union, with an early form of The Tank, so as to close the back door to France. But probably it would never have come to that, as the canny Scots would have seen the benefits of uniting with such a rising power. And, indeed, Scots and Scotland did well out of the British Empire
Certainly the English Caribbean slave and sugar economy was established by 1710, and Scotland wanted its share of that bonanza, hence the Darien scheme.
OH, quite so. But so did much of Europe, not that that is any justification. And they didn't feel thje need for enosis with England.
But what Scotland lacked in 1710 was not natural resources or skilled workers, but rather access to capital and trade routes.
Cromwells suppression of the Dutch meant that England had become the major trading power, at least in Protestant Europe. The nautical, sugar, and Indian trade had generated the capital markets and trade routes that were the opportunity for Scottish business. It was that convergence that created the Eighteenth Century convergence of Scottish and English interests.
Obviously things have moved on somewhat over the three centuries.
Capital was definitely an issue, but workers would have been an issue, too
Scotland’s population in 1700 was about 1m, England’s was about 5-6m
Scotland cannot naturally support a large population, it is too cold and wet and northerly (we see that even now). England is more fertile and can feed more people. It is that simple
Even if Scotland has managed to industrialise as fast as England and as powerfully, how would it have manned the factories?
It was never going to happen, some form of union with an ever-mightier England was inevitable. It is arguable that the peaceful union of 1707 was a lot better than some sanguinary English conquest 20-60 years down the line
Slight problem with your logic. (a) massive Scottish investment in high farming during the 18th century = fewer farmworkers, more food (b) fewer people = fewer to feed
Crivvens, talk about missing the point
Factories in the 18th-19th centuries required huge amounts of manpower. Scotland simply did not possess that. There is a reason the Romans got as far as Hadrian’s Wall and then thought Fuck it, can’t be arsed (and that was in an age of kinder climates)
England as the naturally senior, older, greater power was always going to prevail in 1700. It casts no shame on Scotland to say it is perpetually destined to be inferior
Romans got as far north as the Antonine Wall, actually.
No, muich further than that. They had a frontier zone in the Perth area for some time. Been to see the frontier patrol road and the watchtowers.
It's bollocks to make up some fake stuff about Romans and use it in an arguiment about 1706, anyway.
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
HAve a look again. For instance, the Tranent and Cockenzie Waggonway.
I’m sure some Scots had mastered the wheel by 1700 but that doesn’t alter the facts
England was a nascent superpower, with a puissant navy and a booming economy; if Scots had resisted union England would have invaded and conquered and enforced union, with an early form of The Tank, so as to close the back door to France. But probably it would never have come to that, as the canny Scots would have seen the benefits of uniting with such a rising power. And, indeed, Scots and Scotland did well out of the British Empire
Certainly the English Caribbean slave and sugar economy was established by 1710, and Scotland wanted its share of that bonanza, hence the Darien scheme.
OH, quite so. But so did much of Europe, not that that is any justification. And they didn't feel thje need for enosis with England.
But what Scotland lacked in 1710 was not natural resources or skilled workers, but rather access to capital and trade routes.
Cromwells suppression of the Dutch meant that England had become the major trading power, at least in Protestant Europe. The nautical, sugar, and Indian trade had generated the capital markets and trade routes that were the opportunity for Scottish business. It was that convergence that created the Eighteenth Century convergence of Scottish and English interests.
Obviously things have moved on somewhat over the three centuries.
Capital was definitely an issue, but workers would have been an issue, too
Scotland’s population in 1700 was about 1m, England’s was about 5-6m
Scotland cannot naturally support a large population, it is too cold and wet and northerly (we see that even now). England is more fertile and can feed more people. It is that simple
Even if Scotland has managed to industrialise as fast as England and as powerfully, how would it have manned the factories?
It was never going to happen, some form of union with an ever-mightier England was inevitable. It is arguable that the peaceful union of 1707 was a lot better than some sanguinary English conquest 20-60 years down the line
Slight problem with your logic. (a) massive Scottish investment in high farming during the 18th century = fewer farmworkers, more food (b) fewer people = fewer to feed
Crivvens, talk about missing the point
Factories in the 18th-19th centuries required huge amounts of manpower. Scotland simply did not possess that. There is a reason the Romans got as far as Hadrian’s Wall and then thought Fuck it, can’t be arsed (and that was in an age of kinder climates)
England as the naturally senior, older, greater power was always going to prevail in 1700. It casts no shame on Scotland to say it is perpetually destined to be inferior
'senior' 'older' are historically wrong, but not relevant here anyway. So scratch that.
You're assuming that the Scottish economy would have developed as it did after union of the parliaments. Could have been quite different after 1707 if union had not happened. For instance, it was already - and remained - notably integrated with Scandinavia for a trade in iron and other products.
ANd as for your neo-imperialism, I will merely draw it to your attention, and leave you to consider it in the context of 2022 rather than a terrified London establishment of 1706.
Scotland has never been subject to neo imperialism, if it was Scotland would never have elected MPs to Westminster, let alone had its own Parliament too
Well this was a quality thread to read through, I must say, least for the most part. I've decided to keep it that way and stay mum. Korean novel instead. Quite a strange one.
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
HAve a look again. For instance, the Tranent and Cockenzie Waggonway.
I’m sure some Scots had mastered the wheel by 1700 but that doesn’t alter the facts
England was a nascent superpower, with a puissant navy and a booming economy; if Scots had resisted union England would have invaded and conquered and enforced union, with an early form of The Tank, so as to close the back door to France. But probably it would never have come to that, as the canny Scots would have seen the benefits of uniting with such a rising power. And, indeed, Scots and Scotland did well out of the British Empire
Certainly the English Caribbean slave and sugar economy was established by 1710, and Scotland wanted its share of that bonanza, hence the Darien scheme.
OH, quite so. But so did much of Europe, not that that is any justification. And they didn't feel thje need for enosis with England.
But what Scotland lacked in 1710 was not natural resources or skilled workers, but rather access to capital and trade routes.
Cromwells suppression of the Dutch meant that England had become the major trading power, at least in Protestant Europe. The nautical, sugar, and Indian trade had generated the capital markets and trade routes that were the opportunity for Scottish business. It was that convergence that created the Eighteenth Century convergence of Scottish and English interests.
Obviously things have moved on somewhat over the three centuries.
Capital was definitely an issue, but workers would have been an issue, too
Scotland’s population in 1700 was about 1m, England’s was about 5-6m
Scotland cannot naturally support a large population, it is too cold and wet and northerly (we see that even now). England is more fertile and can feed more people. It is that simple
Even if Scotland has managed to industrialise as fast as England and as powerfully, how would it have manned the factories?
It was never going to happen, some form of union with an ever-mightier England was inevitable. It is arguable that the peaceful union of 1707 was a lot better than some sanguinary English conquest 20-60 years down the line
Slight problem with your logic. (a) massive Scottish investment in high farming during the 18th century = fewer farmworkers, more food (b) fewer people = fewer to feed
Crivvens, talk about missing the point
Factories in the 18th-19th centuries required huge amounts of manpower. Scotland simply did not possess that. There is a reason the Romans got as far as Hadrian’s Wall and then thought Fuck it, can’t be arsed (and that was in an age of kinder climates)
England as the naturally senior, older, greater power was always going to prevail in 1700. It casts no shame on Scotland to say it is perpetually destined to be inferior
'senior' 'older' are historically wrong, but not relevant here anyway. So scratch that.
You're assuming that the Scottish economy would have developed as it did after union of the parliaments. Could have been quite different after 1707 if union had not happened. For instance, it was already - and remained - notably integrated with Scandinavia for a trade in iron and other products.
ANd as for your neo-imperialism, I will merely draw it to your attention, and leave you to consider it in the context of 2022 rather than a terrified London establishment of 1706.
Scotland has never been subject to neo imperialism, if it was Scotland would never have elected MPs to Westminster, let alone had its own Parliament too
It had its own Parliament before the Union, so I don't thin you can claim credit for it!!
South Carolina: https://twitter.com/ABCNews4/status/1542931041723326466 The state now asks abortion providers to send sheriff's offices reports of women who were impregnated by rape or incest and are trying to terminate the pregnancy
i’ve never had an abortion but my access to healthcare has changed because Roe was overturned.
I have #Lupus which is an inflammatory autoimmune disease that causes my immune system to attack my organs, joints, skin, and muscles.
i take #Methotrexate as one of my treatments
i received an email from my rheumatologist today that they are stopping all refills of methotrexate because it is considered an abortifacient.
Methotrexate is a form of chemotherapy. But in reduced quantities it can be taken long term to help with many autoimmune diseases.
Roe was overturned 6 days ago. in less than one week i lost access to healthcare that i need because the drug could be used to induce abortions.
it took 144 hours for me to have less safe healthcare because Roe was overturned.
Don’t tell me you’re pro-life.
That does not automatically follow, it is possible to allow Methotrexate specifically to treat autoimmune diseases but not to induce abortions
It does very much follow. You would't get insurance if you are a doctor giving it to women of childbearing years.
Legally you could do, logically there is nothing contrary with not being able to apply it to women to induce abortions and being able to apply it to women with autoimmune diseases
What if they have an autoimmune disease and are also pregnant?
Best stay off methotrexate then, it is teratogenic. Azathioprine is thought to have a better safety profile, but conversion takes time.
Worth noting too that uncontrolled lupus causes miscarriages too.
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
HAve a look again. For instance, the Tranent and Cockenzie Waggonway.
I’m sure some Scots had mastered the wheel by 1700 but that doesn’t alter the facts
England was a nascent superpower, with a puissant navy and a booming economy; if Scots had resisted union England would have invaded and conquered and enforced union, with an early form of The Tank, so as to close the back door to France. But probably it would never have come to that, as the canny Scots would have seen the benefits of uniting with such a rising power. And, indeed, Scots and Scotland did well out of the British Empire
Certainly the English Caribbean slave and sugar economy was established by 1710, and Scotland wanted its share of that bonanza, hence the Darien scheme.
OH, quite so. But so did much of Europe, not that that is any justification. And they didn't feel thje need for enosis with England.
But what Scotland lacked in 1710 was not natural resources or skilled workers, but rather access to capital and trade routes.
Cromwells suppression of the Dutch meant that England had become the major trading power, at least in Protestant Europe. The nautical, sugar, and Indian trade had generated the capital markets and trade routes that were the opportunity for Scottish business. It was that convergence that created the Eighteenth Century convergence of Scottish and English interests.
Obviously things have moved on somewhat over the three centuries.
Capital was definitely an issue, but workers would have been an issue, too
Scotland’s population in 1700 was about 1m, England’s was about 5-6m
Scotland cannot naturally support a large population, it is too cold and wet and northerly (we see that even now). England is more fertile and can feed more people. It is that simple
Even if Scotland has managed to industrialise as fast as England and as powerfully, how would it have manned the factories?
It was never going to happen, some form of union with an ever-mightier England was inevitable. It is arguable that the peaceful union of 1707 was a lot better than some sanguinary English conquest 20-60 years down the line
Slight problem with your logic. (a) massive Scottish investment in high farming during the 18th century = fewer farmworkers, more food (b) fewer people = fewer to feed
Crivvens, talk about missing the point
Factories in the 18th-19th centuries required huge amounts of manpower. Scotland simply did not possess that. There is a reason the Romans got as far as Hadrian’s Wall and then thought Fuck it, can’t be arsed (and that was in an age of kinder climates)
England as the naturally senior, older, greater power was always going to prevail in 1700. It casts no shame on Scotland to say it is perpetually destined to be inferior
Romans got as far north as the Antonine Wall, actually.
No, muich further than that. They had a frontier zone in the Perth area for some time. Been to see the frontier patrol road and the watchtowers.
It's bollocks to make up some fake stuff about Romans and use it in an arguiment about 1706, anyway.
It grates on us English who have to travel south to Hadrian's Wall as well.
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
HAve a look again. For instance, the Tranent and Cockenzie Waggonway.
I’m sure some Scots had mastered the wheel by 1700 but that doesn’t alter the facts
England was a nascent superpower, with a puissant navy and a booming economy; if Scots had resisted union England would have invaded and conquered and enforced union, with an early form of The Tank, so as to close the back door to France. But probably it would never have come to that, as the canny Scots would have seen the benefits of uniting with such a rising power. And, indeed, Scots and Scotland did well out of the British Empire
Certainly the English Caribbean slave and sugar economy was established by 1710, and Scotland wanted its share of that bonanza, hence the Darien scheme.
OH, quite so. But so did much of Europe, not that that is any justification. And they didn't feel thje need for enosis with England.
But what Scotland lacked in 1710 was not natural resources or skilled workers, but rather access to capital and trade routes.
Cromwells suppression of the Dutch meant that England had become the major trading power, at least in Protestant Europe. The nautical, sugar, and Indian trade had generated the capital markets and trade routes that were the opportunity for Scottish business. It was that convergence that created the Eighteenth Century convergence of Scottish and English interests.
Obviously things have moved on somewhat over the three centuries.
Capital was definitely an issue, but workers would have been an issue, too
Scotland’s population in 1700 was about 1m, England’s was about 5-6m
Scotland cannot naturally support a large population, it is too cold and wet and northerly (we see that even now). England is more fertile and can feed more people. It is that simple
Even if Scotland has managed to industrialise as fast as England and as powerfully, how would it have manned the factories?
It was never going to happen, some form of union with an ever-mightier England was inevitable. It is arguable that the peaceful union of 1707 was a lot better than some sanguinary English conquest 20-60 years down the line
Slight problem with your logic. (a) massive Scottish investment in high farming during the 18th century = fewer farmworkers, more food (b) fewer people = fewer to feed
Crivvens, talk about missing the point
Factories in the 18th-19th centuries required huge amounts of manpower. Scotland simply did not possess that. There is a reason the Romans got as far as Hadrian’s Wall and then thought Fuck it, can’t be arsed (and that was in an age of kinder climates)
England as the naturally senior, older, greater power was always going to prevail in 1700. It casts no shame on Scotland to say it is perpetually destined to be inferior
Romans got as far north as the Antonine Wall, actually.
No, muich further than that. They had a frontier zone in the Perth area for some time. Been to see the frontier patrol road and the watchtowers.
It's bollocks to make up some fake stuff about Romans and use it in an arguiment about 1706, anyway.
It grates on us English who have to travel south to Hadrian's Wall as well.
There's that too, every time Gallowgate or you goes down Grainger Street to Newcastle Central Station to hop onto the train.
South Carolina: https://twitter.com/ABCNews4/status/1542931041723326466 The state now asks abortion providers to send sheriff's offices reports of women who were impregnated by rape or incest and are trying to terminate the pregnancy
i’ve never had an abortion but my access to healthcare has changed because Roe was overturned.
I have #Lupus which is an inflammatory autoimmune disease that causes my immune system to attack my organs, joints, skin, and muscles.
i take #Methotrexate as one of my treatments
i received an email from my rheumatologist today that they are stopping all refills of methotrexate because it is considered an abortifacient.
Methotrexate is a form of chemotherapy. But in reduced quantities it can be taken long term to help with many autoimmune diseases.
Roe was overturned 6 days ago. in less than one week i lost access to healthcare that i need because the drug could be used to induce abortions.
it took 144 hours for me to have less safe healthcare because Roe was overturned.
Don’t tell me you’re pro-life.
That does not automatically follow, it is possible to allow Methotrexate specifically to treat autoimmune diseases but not to induce abortions
It does very much follow. You would't get insurance if you are a doctor giving it to women of childbearing years.
Legally you could do, logically there is nothing contrary with not being able to apply it to women to induce abortions and being able to apply it to women with autoimmune diseases
What if they have an autoimmune disease and are also pregnant?
Best stay off methotrexate then, it is teratogenic. Azathioprine is thought to have a better safety profile, but conversion takes time.
Worth noting too that uncontrolled lupus causes miscarriages too.
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
HAve a look again. For instance, the Tranent and Cockenzie Waggonway.
I’m sure some Scots had mastered the wheel by 1700 but that doesn’t alter the facts
England was a nascent superpower, with a puissant navy and a booming economy; if Scots had resisted union England would have invaded and conquered and enforced union, with an early form of The Tank, so as to close the back door to France. But probably it would never have come to that, as the canny Scots would have seen the benefits of uniting with such a rising power. And, indeed, Scots and Scotland did well out of the British Empire
Certainly the English Caribbean slave and sugar economy was established by 1710, and Scotland wanted its share of that bonanza, hence the Darien scheme.
OH, quite so. But so did much of Europe, not that that is any justification. And they didn't feel thje need for enosis with England.
But what Scotland lacked in 1710 was not natural resources or skilled workers, but rather access to capital and trade routes.
Cromwells suppression of the Dutch meant that England had become the major trading power, at least in Protestant Europe. The nautical, sugar, and Indian trade had generated the capital markets and trade routes that were the opportunity for Scottish business. It was that convergence that created the Eighteenth Century convergence of Scottish and English interests.
Obviously things have moved on somewhat over the three centuries.
Capital was definitely an issue, but workers would have been an issue, too
Scotland’s population in 1700 was about 1m, England’s was about 5-6m
Scotland cannot naturally support a large population, it is too cold and wet and northerly (we see that even now). England is more fertile and can feed more people. It is that simple
Even if Scotland has managed to industrialise as fast as England and as powerfully, how would it have manned the factories?
It was never going to happen, some form of union with an ever-mightier England was inevitable. It is arguable that the peaceful union of 1707 was a lot better than some sanguinary English conquest 20-60 years down the line
Slight problem with your logic. (a) massive Scottish investment in high farming during the 18th century = fewer farmworkers, more food (b) fewer people = fewer to feed
Crivvens, talk about missing the point
Factories in the 18th-19th centuries required huge amounts of manpower. Scotland simply did not possess that. There is a reason the Romans got as far as Hadrian’s Wall and then thought Fuck it, can’t be arsed (and that was in an age of kinder climates)
England as the naturally senior, older, greater power was always going to prevail in 1700. It casts no shame on Scotland to say it is perpetually destined to be inferior
'senior' 'older' are historically wrong, but not relevant here anyway. So scratch that.
You're assuming that the Scottish economy would have developed as it did after union of the parliaments. Could have been quite different after 1707 if union had not happened. For instance, it was already - and remained - notably integrated with Scandinavia for a trade in iron and other products.
ANd as for your neo-imperialism, I will merely draw it to your attention, and leave you to consider it in the context of 2022 rather than a terrified London establishment of 1706.
Scotland began to coalesce as a nation in the mid-9th century under the House of Alpin
By that time Bede had already WRITTEN his HISTORY of the English people - completed in 731, a century before Scotland was even an idea. And Bede’s book was a history
“The Ecclesiastical History of the English People (Latin: Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum), written by the Venerable Bede in about AD 731, is a history of the Christian Churches in England, and of England generally; its main focus is on the conflict between the pre-Schism Roman Rite and Celtic Christianity. It was originally composed in Latin, and is believed to have been completed in 731 when Bede was approximately 59 years old. It is considered one of the most important original references on Anglo-Saxon history, and has played a key role in the development of an English national identity.”
So, yes, England is the senior power. The larger, older, nobler, greater. I’m sorry if this irks you emotionally. It’s nuts if it does. This is Dark Age history. Time to move on
If sick women have to die then that is well worth it to be truly pro-life.
Pb truly came up trumps for me today.
I was teaching A-level politics and shared the recent tweet I saw here: 'the Supreme Court believes life begins at conception and ends with a mass shooting.'
It did more to explain the fucked up nature of the Yankee judiciary than a hundred seminars.
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
HAve a look again. For instance, the Tranent and Cockenzie Waggonway.
I’m sure some Scots had mastered the wheel by 1700 but that doesn’t alter the facts
England was a nascent superpower, with a puissant navy and a booming economy; if Scots had resisted union England would have invaded and conquered and enforced union, with an early form of The Tank, so as to close the back door to France. But probably it would never have come to that, as the canny Scots would have seen the benefits of uniting with such a rising power. And, indeed, Scots and Scotland did well out of the British Empire
Certainly the English Caribbean slave and sugar economy was established by 1710, and Scotland wanted its share of that bonanza, hence the Darien scheme.
OH, quite so. But so did much of Europe, not that that is any justification. And they didn't feel thje need for enosis with England.
But what Scotland lacked in 1710 was not natural resources or skilled workers, but rather access to capital and trade routes.
Cromwells suppression of the Dutch meant that England had become the major trading power, at least in Protestant Europe. The nautical, sugar, and Indian trade had generated the capital markets and trade routes that were the opportunity for Scottish business. It was that convergence that created the Eighteenth Century convergence of Scottish and English interests.
Obviously things have moved on somewhat over the three centuries.
Capital was definitely an issue, but workers would have been an issue, too
Scotland’s population in 1700 was about 1m, England’s was about 5-6m
Scotland cannot naturally support a large population, it is too cold and wet and northerly (we see that even now). England is more fertile and can feed more people. It is that simple
Even if Scotland has managed to industrialise as fast as England and as powerfully, how would it have manned the factories?
It was never going to happen, some form of union with an ever-mightier England was inevitable. It is arguable that the peaceful union of 1707 was a lot better than some sanguinary English conquest 20-60 years down the line
Slight problem with your logic. (a) massive Scottish investment in high farming during the 18th century = fewer farmworkers, more food (b) fewer people = fewer to feed
Crivvens, talk about missing the point
Factories in the 18th-19th centuries required huge amounts of manpower. Scotland simply did not possess that. There is a reason the Romans got as far as Hadrian’s Wall and then thought Fuck it, can’t be arsed (and that was in an age of kinder climates)
England as the naturally senior, older, greater power was always going to prevail in 1700. It casts no shame on Scotland to say it is perpetually destined to be inferior
Romans got as far north as the Antonine Wall, actually.
Further than that, they got as far as the Orkneys.
Liverpool agreeing a new deal with Mo Salah on the same day Everton sell Richarlison, are linked with Jesse Lingard and see a potential takeover collapse is one hell of an episode of the sitcom we’ve all been watching for the past 30 years or so.
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
HAve a look again. For instance, the Tranent and Cockenzie Waggonway.
I’m sure some Scots had mastered the wheel by 1700 but that doesn’t alter the facts
England was a nascent superpower, with a puissant navy and a booming economy; if Scots had resisted union England would have invaded and conquered and enforced union, with an early form of The Tank, so as to close the back door to France. But probably it would never have come to that, as the canny Scots would have seen the benefits of uniting with such a rising power. And, indeed, Scots and Scotland did well out of the British Empire
Certainly the English Caribbean slave and sugar economy was established by 1710, and Scotland wanted its share of that bonanza, hence the Darien scheme.
OH, quite so. But so did much of Europe, not that that is any justification. And they didn't feel thje need for enosis with England.
But what Scotland lacked in 1710 was not natural resources or skilled workers, but rather access to capital and trade routes.
Cromwells suppression of the Dutch meant that England had become the major trading power, at least in Protestant Europe. The nautical, sugar, and Indian trade had generated the capital markets and trade routes that were the opportunity for Scottish business. It was that convergence that created the Eighteenth Century convergence of Scottish and English interests.
Obviously things have moved on somewhat over the three centuries.
Capital was definitely an issue, but workers would have been an issue, too
Scotland’s population in 1700 was about 1m, England’s was about 5-6m
Scotland cannot naturally support a large population, it is too cold and wet and northerly (we see that even now). England is more fertile and can feed more people. It is that simple
Even if Scotland has managed to industrialise as fast as England and as powerfully, how would it have manned the factories?
It was never going to happen, some form of union with an ever-mightier England was inevitable. It is arguable that the peaceful union of 1707 was a lot better than some sanguinary English conquest 20-60 years down the line
Slight problem with your logic. (a) massive Scottish investment in high farming during the 18th century = fewer farmworkers, more food (b) fewer people = fewer to feed
Crivvens, talk about missing the point
Factories in the 18th-19th centuries required huge amounts of manpower. Scotland simply did not possess that. There is a reason the Romans got as far as Hadrian’s Wall and then thought Fuck it, can’t be arsed (and that was in an age of kinder climates)
England as the naturally senior, older, greater power was always going to prevail in 1700. It casts no shame on Scotland to say it is perpetually destined to be inferior
'senior' 'older' are historically wrong, but not relevant here anyway. So scratch that.
You're assuming that the Scottish economy would have developed as it did after union of the parliaments. Could have been quite different after 1707 if union had not happened. For instance, it was already - and remained - notably integrated with Scandinavia for a trade in iron and other products.
ANd as for your neo-imperialism, I will merely draw it to your attention, and leave you to consider it in the context of 2022 rather than a terrified London establishment of 1706.
Scotland began to coalesce as a nation in the mid-9th century under the House of Alpin
By that time Bede had already WRITTEN his HISTORY of the English people - completed in 731, a century before Scotland was even an idea. And Bede’s book was a history
“The Ecclesiastical History of the English People (Latin: Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum), written by the Venerable Bede in about AD 731, is a history of the Christian Churches in England, and of England generally; its main focus is on the conflict between the pre-Schism Roman Rite and Celtic Christianity. It was originally composed in Latin, and is believed to have been completed in 731 when Bede was approximately 59 years old. It is considered one of the most important original references on Anglo-Saxon history, and has played a key role in the development of an English national identity.”
So, yes, England is the senior power. The larger, older, nobler, greater. I’m sorry if this irks you emotionally. It’s nuts if it does. This is Dark Age history. Time to move on
Not relevant to 2022, which is what I was saying already.
Inspecting the notion, out of academic interest. it is confusing the *tribe/linguistic grouping* with the *state*. So not relevant. Not to mention the point that Scotland and England's border, being complementary, was necessarily settled at precisely the same moment for both.
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
HAve a look again. For instance, the Tranent and Cockenzie Waggonway.
I’m sure some Scots had mastered the wheel by 1700 but that doesn’t alter the facts
England was a nascent superpower, with a puissant navy and a booming economy; if Scots had resisted union England would have invaded and conquered and enforced union, with an early form of The Tank, so as to close the back door to France. But probably it would never have come to that, as the canny Scots would have seen the benefits of uniting with such a rising power. And, indeed, Scots and Scotland did well out of the British Empire
Certainly the English Caribbean slave and sugar economy was established by 1710, and Scotland wanted its share of that bonanza, hence the Darien scheme.
OH, quite so. But so did much of Europe, not that that is any justification. And they didn't feel thje need for enosis with England.
But what Scotland lacked in 1710 was not natural resources or skilled workers, but rather access to capital and trade routes.
Cromwells suppression of the Dutch meant that England had become the major trading power, at least in Protestant Europe. The nautical, sugar, and Indian trade had generated the capital markets and trade routes that were the opportunity for Scottish business. It was that convergence that created the Eighteenth Century convergence of Scottish and English interests.
Obviously things have moved on somewhat over the three centuries.
Capital was definitely an issue, but workers would have been an issue, too
Scotland’s population in 1700 was about 1m, England’s was about 5-6m
Scotland cannot naturally support a large population, it is too cold and wet and northerly (we see that even now). England is more fertile and can feed more people. It is that simple
Even if Scotland has managed to industrialise as fast as England and as powerfully, how would it have manned the factories?
It was never going to happen, some form of union with an ever-mightier England was inevitable. It is arguable that the peaceful union of 1707 was a lot better than some sanguinary English conquest 20-60 years down the line
Slight problem with your logic. (a) massive Scottish investment in high farming during the 18th century = fewer farmworkers, more food (b) fewer people = fewer to feed
Crivvens, talk about missing the point
Factories in the 18th-19th centuries required huge amounts of manpower. Scotland simply did not possess that. There is a reason the Romans got as far as Hadrian’s Wall and then thought Fuck it, can’t be arsed (and that was in an age of kinder climates)
England as the naturally senior, older, greater power was always going to prevail in 1700. It casts no shame on Scotland to say it is perpetually destined to be inferior
Romans got as far north as the Antonine Wall, actually.
Further than that, they got as far as the Orkneys.
South Carolina: https://twitter.com/ABCNews4/status/1542931041723326466 The state now asks abortion providers to send sheriff's offices reports of women who were impregnated by rape or incest and are trying to terminate the pregnancy
i’ve never had an abortion but my access to healthcare has changed because Roe was overturned.
I have #Lupus which is an inflammatory autoimmune disease that causes my immune system to attack my organs, joints, skin, and muscles.
i take #Methotrexate as one of my treatments
i received an email from my rheumatologist today that they are stopping all refills of methotrexate because it is considered an abortifacient.
Methotrexate is a form of chemotherapy. But in reduced quantities it can be taken long term to help with many autoimmune diseases.
Roe was overturned 6 days ago. in less than one week i lost access to healthcare that i need because the drug could be used to induce abortions.
it took 144 hours for me to have less safe healthcare because Roe was overturned.
Don’t tell me you’re pro-life.
That does not automatically follow, it is possible to allow Methotrexate specifically to treat autoimmune diseases but not to induce abortions
It does very much follow. You would't get insurance if you are a doctor giving it to women of childbearing years.
Legally you could do, logically there is nothing contrary with not being able to apply it to women to induce abortions and being able to apply it to women with autoimmune diseases
What if they have an autoimmune disease and are also pregnant?
Best stay off methotrexate then, it is teratogenic. Azathioprine is thought to have a better safety profile, but conversion takes time.
Worth noting too that uncontrolled lupus causes miscarriages too.
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
HAve a look again. For instance, the Tranent and Cockenzie Waggonway.
I’m sure some Scots had mastered the wheel by 1700 but that doesn’t alter the facts
England was a nascent superpower, with a puissant navy and a booming economy; if Scots had resisted union England would have invaded and conquered and enforced union, with an early form of The Tank, so as to close the back door to France. But probably it would never have come to that, as the canny Scots would have seen the benefits of uniting with such a rising power. And, indeed, Scots and Scotland did well out of the British Empire
Certainly the English Caribbean slave and sugar economy was established by 1710, and Scotland wanted its share of that bonanza, hence the Darien scheme.
OH, quite so. But so did much of Europe, not that that is any justification. And they didn't feel thje need for enosis with England.
But what Scotland lacked in 1710 was not natural resources or skilled workers, but rather access to capital and trade routes.
Cromwells suppression of the Dutch meant that England had become the major trading power, at least in Protestant Europe. The nautical, sugar, and Indian trade had generated the capital markets and trade routes that were the opportunity for Scottish business. It was that convergence that created the Eighteenth Century convergence of Scottish and English interests.
Obviously things have moved on somewhat over the three centuries.
Capital was definitely an issue, but workers would have been an issue, too
Scotland’s population in 1700 was about 1m, England’s was about 5-6m
Scotland cannot naturally support a large population, it is too cold and wet and northerly (we see that even now). England is more fertile and can feed more people. It is that simple
Even if Scotland has managed to industrialise as fast as England and as powerfully, how would it have manned the factories?
It was never going to happen, some form of union with an ever-mightier England was inevitable. It is arguable that the peaceful union of 1707 was a lot better than some sanguinary English conquest 20-60 years down the line
Slight problem with your logic. (a) massive Scottish investment in high farming during the 18th century = fewer farmworkers, more food (b) fewer people = fewer to feed
Crivvens, talk about missing the point
Factories in the 18th-19th centuries required huge amounts of manpower. Scotland simply did not possess that. There is a reason the Romans got as far as Hadrian’s Wall and then thought Fuck it, can’t be arsed (and that was in an age of kinder climates)
England as the naturally senior, older, greater power was always going to prevail in 1700. It casts no shame on Scotland to say it is perpetually destined to be inferior
Romans got as far north as the Antonine Wall, actually.
Further than that, they got as far as the Orkneys.
Shetlands perhaps? Not sure.
Roman trade goods are found all over. Hadrians Wall was as much a customs and trading station as a military one.
South Carolina: https://twitter.com/ABCNews4/status/1542931041723326466 The state now asks abortion providers to send sheriff's offices reports of women who were impregnated by rape or incest and are trying to terminate the pregnancy
i’ve never had an abortion but my access to healthcare has changed because Roe was overturned.
I have #Lupus which is an inflammatory autoimmune disease that causes my immune system to attack my organs, joints, skin, and muscles.
i take #Methotrexate as one of my treatments
i received an email from my rheumatologist today that they are stopping all refills of methotrexate because it is considered an abortifacient.
Methotrexate is a form of chemotherapy. But in reduced quantities it can be taken long term to help with many autoimmune diseases.
Roe was overturned 6 days ago. in less than one week i lost access to healthcare that i need because the drug could be used to induce abortions.
it took 144 hours for me to have less safe healthcare because Roe was overturned.
Don’t tell me you’re pro-life.
That does not automatically follow, it is possible to allow Methotrexate specifically to treat autoimmune diseases but not to induce abortions
It does very much follow. You would't get insurance if you are a doctor giving it to women of childbearing years.
Legally you could do, logically there is nothing contrary with not being able to apply it to women to induce abortions and being able to apply it to women with autoimmune diseases
What if they have an autoimmune disease and are also pregnant?
Best stay off methotrexate then, it is teratogenic. Azathioprine is thought to have a better safety profile, but conversion takes time.
Worth noting too that uncontrolled lupus causes miscarriages too.
Very dodgy drug, Methotrexate!
Bloody useful in cancer treatments though.
The difference between pharmaceutical treatment and poisoning is largely one of dosage.
South Carolina: https://twitter.com/ABCNews4/status/1542931041723326466 The state now asks abortion providers to send sheriff's offices reports of women who were impregnated by rape or incest and are trying to terminate the pregnancy
South Carolina: https://twitter.com/ABCNews4/status/1542931041723326466 The state now asks abortion providers to send sheriff's offices reports of women who were impregnated by rape or incest and are trying to terminate the pregnancy
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
HAve a look again. For instance, the Tranent and Cockenzie Waggonway.
I’m sure some Scots had mastered the wheel by 1700 but that doesn’t alter the facts
England was a nascent superpower, with a puissant navy and a booming economy; if Scots had resisted union England would have invaded and conquered and enforced union, with an early form of The Tank, so as to close the back door to France. But probably it would never have come to that, as the canny Scots would have seen the benefits of uniting with such a rising power. And, indeed, Scots and Scotland did well out of the British Empire
Certainly the English Caribbean slave and sugar economy was established by 1710, and Scotland wanted its share of that bonanza, hence the Darien scheme.
OH, quite so. But so did much of Europe, not that that is any justification. And they didn't feel thje need for enosis with England.
But what Scotland lacked in 1710 was not natural resources or skilled workers, but rather access to capital and trade routes.
Cromwells suppression of the Dutch meant that England had become the major trading power, at least in Protestant Europe. The nautical, sugar, and Indian trade had generated the capital markets and trade routes that were the opportunity for Scottish business. It was that convergence that created the Eighteenth Century convergence of Scottish and English interests.
Obviously things have moved on somewhat over the three centuries.
Capital was definitely an issue, but workers would have been an issue, too
Scotland’s population in 1700 was about 1m, England’s was about 5-6m
Scotland cannot naturally support a large population, it is too cold and wet and northerly (we see that even now). England is more fertile and can feed more people. It is that simple
Even if Scotland has managed to industrialise as fast as England and as powerfully, how would it have manned the factories?
It was never going to happen, some form of union with an ever-mightier England was inevitable. It is arguable that the peaceful union of 1707 was a lot better than some sanguinary English conquest 20-60 years down the line
Slight problem with your logic. (a) massive Scottish investment in high farming during the 18th century = fewer farmworkers, more food (b) fewer people = fewer to feed
Crivvens, talk about missing the point
Factories in the 18th-19th centuries required huge amounts of manpower. Scotland simply did not possess that. There is a reason the Romans got as far as Hadrian’s Wall and then thought Fuck it, can’t be arsed (and that was in an age of kinder climates)
England as the naturally senior, older, greater power was always going to prevail in 1700. It casts no shame on Scotland to say it is perpetually destined to be inferior
'senior' 'older' are historically wrong, but not relevant here anyway. So scratch that.
You're assuming that the Scottish economy would have developed as it did after union of the parliaments. Could have been quite different after 1707 if union had not happened. For instance, it was already - and remained - notably integrated with Scandinavia for a trade in iron and other products.
ANd as for your neo-imperialism, I will merely draw it to your attention, and leave you to consider it in the context of 2022 rather than a terrified London establishment of 1706.
Scotland began to coalesce as a nation in the mid-9th century under the House of Alpin
By that time Bede had already WRITTEN his HISTORY of the English people - completed in 731, a century before Scotland was even an idea. And Bede’s book was a history
“The Ecclesiastical History of the English People (Latin: Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum), written by the Venerable Bede in about AD 731, is a history of the Christian Churches in England, and of England generally; its main focus is on the conflict between the pre-Schism Roman Rite and Celtic Christianity. It was originally composed in Latin, and is believed to have been completed in 731 when Bede was approximately 59 years old. It is considered one of the most important original references on Anglo-Saxon history, and has played a key role in the development of an English national identity.”
So, yes, England is the senior power. The larger, older, nobler, greater. I’m sorry if this irks you emotionally. It’s nuts if it does. This is Dark Age history. Time to move on
Not relevant to 2022, which is what I was saying already.
Inspecting the notion, out of academic interest. it is confusing the *tribe/linguistic grouping* with the *state*. So not relevant. Not to mention the point that Scotland and England's border, being complementary, was necessarily settled at precisely the same moment for both.
Ahistorical nonsense
A frontier is not always an agreed line between equals, it can often demarcate the civilised from the uncivilised, The state from the non-state. It can simply say: cross this border, and here be monsters
Hadrian’s Wall did that. The wall in Game of Thrones is based upon Hadrian’s Wall. Cf the Great Wall of China, the Viking-Norman Pale in Ireland, the various (moving) frontiers in the American West, and so on. Often these were hideous imperial impositions, but they also marked a genuine difference, and falling off, in civilisation. Even now one can sense this around Berwick or Gretna. Something cruder, more brutish, and less sanitary, lies to the north
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
HAve a look again. For instance, the Tranent and Cockenzie Waggonway.
I’m sure some Scots had mastered the wheel by 1700 but that doesn’t alter the facts
England was a nascent superpower, with a puissant navy and a booming economy; if Scots had resisted union England would have invaded and conquered and enforced union, with an early form of The Tank, so as to close the back door to France. But probably it would never have come to that, as the canny Scots would have seen the benefits of uniting with such a rising power. And, indeed, Scots and Scotland did well out of the British Empire
Certainly the English Caribbean slave and sugar economy was established by 1710, and Scotland wanted its share of that bonanza, hence the Darien scheme.
OH, quite so. But so did much of Europe, not that that is any justification. And they didn't feel thje need for enosis with England.
But what Scotland lacked in 1710 was not natural resources or skilled workers, but rather access to capital and trade routes.
Cromwells suppression of the Dutch meant that England had become the major trading power, at least in Protestant Europe. The nautical, sugar, and Indian trade had generated the capital markets and trade routes that were the opportunity for Scottish business. It was that convergence that created the Eighteenth Century convergence of Scottish and English interests.
Obviously things have moved on somewhat over the three centuries.
Capital was definitely an issue, but workers would have been an issue, too
Scotland’s population in 1700 was about 1m, England’s was about 5-6m
Scotland cannot naturally support a large population, it is too cold and wet and northerly (we see that even now). England is more fertile and can feed more people. It is that simple
Even if Scotland has managed to industrialise as fast as England and as powerfully, how would it have manned the factories?
It was never going to happen, some form of union with an ever-mightier England was inevitable. It is arguable that the peaceful union of 1707 was a lot better than some sanguinary English conquest 20-60 years down the line
Slight problem with your logic. (a) massive Scottish investment in high farming during the 18th century = fewer farmworkers, more food (b) fewer people = fewer to feed
Crivvens, talk about missing the point
Factories in the 18th-19th centuries required huge amounts of manpower. Scotland simply did not possess that. There is a reason the Romans got as far as Hadrian’s Wall and then thought Fuck it, can’t be arsed (and that was in an age of kinder climates)
England as the naturally senior, older, greater power was always going to prevail in 1700. It casts no shame on Scotland to say it is perpetually destined to be inferior
Romans got as far north as the Antonine Wall, actually.
Further than that, they got as far as the Orkneys.
Shetlands perhaps? Not sure.
Roman trade goods are found all over. Hadrians Wall was as much a customs and trading station as a military one.
South Carolina: https://twitter.com/ABCNews4/status/1542931041723326466 The state now asks abortion providers to send sheriff's offices reports of women who were impregnated by rape or incest and are trying to terminate the pregnancy
i’ve never had an abortion but my access to healthcare has changed because Roe was overturned.
I have #Lupus which is an inflammatory autoimmune disease that causes my immune system to attack my organs, joints, skin, and muscles.
i take #Methotrexate as one of my treatments
i received an email from my rheumatologist today that they are stopping all refills of methotrexate because it is considered an abortifacient.
Methotrexate is a form of chemotherapy. But in reduced quantities it can be taken long term to help with many autoimmune diseases.
Roe was overturned 6 days ago. in less than one week i lost access to healthcare that i need because the drug could be used to induce abortions.
it took 144 hours for me to have less safe healthcare because Roe was overturned.
Don’t tell me you’re pro-life.
That does not automatically follow, it is possible to allow Methotrexate specifically to treat autoimmune diseases but not to induce abortions
It does very much follow. You would't get insurance if you are a doctor giving it to women of childbearing years.
Legally you could do, logically there is nothing contrary with not being able to apply it to women to induce abortions and being able to apply it to women with autoimmune diseases
What if they have an autoimmune disease and are also pregnant?
Best stay off methotrexate then, it is teratogenic. Azathioprine is thought to have a better safety profile, but conversion takes time.
Worth noting too that uncontrolled lupus causes miscarriages too.
Very dodgy drug, Methotrexate!
Bloody useful in cancer treatments though.
The difference between pharmaceutical treatment and poisoning is largely one of dosage.
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
HAve a look again. For instance, the Tranent and Cockenzie Waggonway.
I’m sure some Scots had mastered the wheel by 1700 but that doesn’t alter the facts
England was a nascent superpower, with a puissant navy and a booming economy; if Scots had resisted union England would have invaded and conquered and enforced union, with an early form of The Tank, so as to close the back door to France. But probably it would never have come to that, as the canny Scots would have seen the benefits of uniting with such a rising power. And, indeed, Scots and Scotland did well out of the British Empire
Certainly the English Caribbean slave and sugar economy was established by 1710, and Scotland wanted its share of that bonanza, hence the Darien scheme.
OH, quite so. But so did much of Europe, not that that is any justification. And they didn't feel thje need for enosis with England.
But what Scotland lacked in 1710 was not natural resources or skilled workers, but rather access to capital and trade routes.
Cromwells suppression of the Dutch meant that England had become the major trading power, at least in Protestant Europe. The nautical, sugar, and Indian trade had generated the capital markets and trade routes that were the opportunity for Scottish business. It was that convergence that created the Eighteenth Century convergence of Scottish and English interests.
Obviously things have moved on somewhat over the three centuries.
Capital was definitely an issue, but workers would have been an issue, too
Scotland’s population in 1700 was about 1m, England’s was about 5-6m
Scotland cannot naturally support a large population, it is too cold and wet and northerly (we see that even now). England is more fertile and can feed more people. It is that simple
Even if Scotland has managed to industrialise as fast as England and as powerfully, how would it have manned the factories?
It was never going to happen, some form of union with an ever-mightier England was inevitable. It is arguable that the peaceful union of 1707 was a lot better than some sanguinary English conquest 20-60 years down the line
Slight problem with your logic. (a) massive Scottish investment in high farming during the 18th century = fewer farmworkers, more food (b) fewer people = fewer to feed
Crivvens, talk about missing the point
Factories in the 18th-19th centuries required huge amounts of manpower. Scotland simply did not possess that. There is a reason the Romans got as far as Hadrian’s Wall and then thought Fuck it, can’t be arsed (and that was in an age of kinder climates)
England as the naturally senior, older, greater power was always going to prevail in 1700. It casts no shame on Scotland to say it is perpetually destined to be inferior
Romans got as far north as the Antonine Wall, actually.
Further than that, they got as far as the Orkneys.
Shetlands perhaps? Not sure.
Agricola's fleet certainly mapped the far north of Scotland and he had a major victory at Mons Graupius, which was probably somewhere near Inverurie against the northern tribes.
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
HAve a look again. For instance, the Tranent and Cockenzie Waggonway.
I’m sure some Scots had mastered the wheel by 1700 but that doesn’t alter the facts
England was a nascent superpower, with a puissant navy and a booming economy; if Scots had resisted union England would have invaded and conquered and enforced union, with an early form of The Tank, so as to close the back door to France. But probably it would never have come to that, as the canny Scots would have seen the benefits of uniting with such a rising power. And, indeed, Scots and Scotland did well out of the British Empire
Certainly the English Caribbean slave and sugar economy was established by 1710, and Scotland wanted its share of that bonanza, hence the Darien scheme.
OH, quite so. But so did much of Europe, not that that is any justification. And they didn't feel thje need for enosis with England.
But what Scotland lacked in 1710 was not natural resources or skilled workers, but rather access to capital and trade routes.
Cromwells suppression of the Dutch meant that England had become the major trading power, at least in Protestant Europe. The nautical, sugar, and Indian trade had generated the capital markets and trade routes that were the opportunity for Scottish business. It was that convergence that created the Eighteenth Century convergence of Scottish and English interests.
Obviously things have moved on somewhat over the three centuries.
Capital was definitely an issue, but workers would have been an issue, too
Scotland’s population in 1700 was about 1m, England’s was about 5-6m
Scotland cannot naturally support a large population, it is too cold and wet and northerly (we see that even now). England is more fertile and can feed more people. It is that simple
Even if Scotland has managed to industrialise as fast as England and as powerfully, how would it have manned the factories?
It was never going to happen, some form of union with an ever-mightier England was inevitable. It is arguable that the peaceful union of 1707 was a lot better than some sanguinary English conquest 20-60 years down the line
Slight problem with your logic. (a) massive Scottish investment in high farming during the 18th century = fewer farmworkers, more food (b) fewer people = fewer to feed
Crivvens, talk about missing the point
Factories in the 18th-19th centuries required huge amounts of manpower. Scotland simply did not possess that. There is a reason the Romans got as far as Hadrian’s Wall and then thought Fuck it, can’t be arsed (and that was in an age of kinder climates)
England as the naturally senior, older, greater power was always going to prevail in 1700. It casts no shame on Scotland to say it is perpetually destined to be inferior
Romans got as far north as the Antonine Wall, actually.
Further than that, they got as far as the Orkneys.
Shetlands perhaps? Not sure.
Roman trade goods are found all over. Hadrians Wall was as much a customs and trading station as a military one.
South Carolina: https://twitter.com/ABCNews4/status/1542931041723326466 The state now asks abortion providers to send sheriff's offices reports of women who were impregnated by rape or incest and are trying to terminate the pregnancy
i’ve never had an abortion but my access to healthcare has changed because Roe was overturned.
I have #Lupus which is an inflammatory autoimmune disease that causes my immune system to attack my organs, joints, skin, and muscles.
i take #Methotrexate as one of my treatments
i received an email from my rheumatologist today that they are stopping all refills of methotrexate because it is considered an abortifacient.
Methotrexate is a form of chemotherapy. But in reduced quantities it can be taken long term to help with many autoimmune diseases.
Roe was overturned 6 days ago. in less than one week i lost access to healthcare that i need because the drug could be used to induce abortions.
it took 144 hours for me to have less safe healthcare because Roe was overturned.
Don’t tell me you’re pro-life.
That does not automatically follow, it is possible to allow Methotrexate specifically to treat autoimmune diseases but not to induce abortions
It does very much follow. You would't get insurance if you are a doctor giving it to women of childbearing years.
Legally you could do, logically there is nothing contrary with not being able to apply it to women to induce abortions and being able to apply it to women with autoimmune diseases
What if they have an autoimmune disease and are also pregnant?
Best stay off methotrexate then, it is teratogenic. Azathioprine is thought to have a better safety profile, but conversion takes time.
Worth noting too that uncontrolled lupus causes miscarriages too.
Very dodgy drug, Methotrexate!
Bloody useful in cancer treatments though.
The difference between pharmaceutical treatment and poisoning is largely one of dosage.
Yes, that’s something I have to explain to my third years every year. Explaining about how nasty some treatments can be is not always easy for them, particularly when they have ill relatives.
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
HAve a look again. For instance, the Tranent and Cockenzie Waggonway.
I’m sure some Scots had mastered the wheel by 1700 but that doesn’t alter the facts
England was a nascent superpower, with a puissant navy and a booming economy; if Scots had resisted union England would have invaded and conquered and enforced union, with an early form of The Tank, so as to close the back door to France. But probably it would never have come to that, as the canny Scots would have seen the benefits of uniting with such a rising power. And, indeed, Scots and Scotland did well out of the British Empire
Certainly the English Caribbean slave and sugar economy was established by 1710, and Scotland wanted its share of that bonanza, hence the Darien scheme.
OH, quite so. But so did much of Europe, not that that is any justification. And they didn't feel thje need for enosis with England.
But what Scotland lacked in 1710 was not natural resources or skilled workers, but rather access to capital and trade routes.
Cromwells suppression of the Dutch meant that England had become the major trading power, at least in Protestant Europe. The nautical, sugar, and Indian trade had generated the capital markets and trade routes that were the opportunity for Scottish business. It was that convergence that created the Eighteenth Century convergence of Scottish and English interests.
Obviously things have moved on somewhat over the three centuries.
Capital was definitely an issue, but workers would have been an issue, too
Scotland’s population in 1700 was about 1m, England’s was about 5-6m
Scotland cannot naturally support a large population, it is too cold and wet and northerly (we see that even now). England is more fertile and can feed more people. It is that simple
Even if Scotland has managed to industrialise as fast as England and as powerfully, how would it have manned the factories?
It was never going to happen, some form of union with an ever-mightier England was inevitable. It is arguable that the peaceful union of 1707 was a lot better than some sanguinary English conquest 20-60 years down the line
Slight problem with your logic. (a) massive Scottish investment in high farming during the 18th century = fewer farmworkers, more food (b) fewer people = fewer to feed
Crivvens, talk about missing the point
Factories in the 18th-19th centuries required huge amounts of manpower. Scotland simply did not possess that. There is a reason the Romans got as far as Hadrian’s Wall and then thought Fuck it, can’t be arsed (and that was in an age of kinder climates)
England as the naturally senior, older, greater power was always going to prevail in 1700. It casts no shame on Scotland to say it is perpetually destined to be inferior
'senior' 'older' are historically wrong, but not relevant here anyway. So scratch that.
You're assuming that the Scottish economy would have developed as it did after union of the parliaments. Could have been quite different after 1707 if union had not happened. For instance, it was already - and remained - notably integrated with Scandinavia for a trade in iron and other products.
ANd as for your neo-imperialism, I will merely draw it to your attention, and leave you to consider it in the context of 2022 rather than a terrified London establishment of 1706.
Scotland began to coalesce as a nation in the mid-9th century under the House of Alpin
By that time Bede had already WRITTEN his HISTORY of the English people - completed in 731, a century before Scotland was even an idea. And Bede’s book was a history
“The Ecclesiastical History of the English People (Latin: Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum), written by the Venerable Bede in about AD 731, is a history of the Christian Churches in England, and of England generally; its main focus is on the conflict between the pre-Schism Roman Rite and Celtic Christianity. It was originally composed in Latin, and is believed to have been completed in 731 when Bede was approximately 59 years old. It is considered one of the most important original references on Anglo-Saxon history, and has played a key role in the development of an English national identity.”
So, yes, England is the senior power. The larger, older, nobler, greater. I’m sorry if this irks you emotionally. It’s nuts if it does. This is Dark Age history. Time to move on
Not relevant to 2022, which is what I was saying already.
Inspecting the notion, out of academic interest. it is confusing the *tribe/linguistic grouping* with the *state*. So not relevant. Not to mention the point that Scotland and England's border, being complementary, was necessarily settled at precisely the same moment for both.
Ahistorical nonsense
A frontier is not always an agreed line between equals, it can often demarcate the civilised from the uncivilised, The state from the non-state. It can simply say: cross this border, and here be monsters
Hadrian’s Wall did that. The wall in Game of Thrones is based upon Hadrian’s Wall. Cf the Great Wall of China, the Viking-Norman Pale in Ireland, the various (moving) frontiers in the American West, and so on. Often these were hideous imperial impositions, but they also marked a genuine difference, and falling off, in civilisation. Even now one can sense this around Berwick or Gretna. Something cruder, more brutish, and less sanitary, lies to the north
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
HAve a look again. For instance, the Tranent and Cockenzie Waggonway.
I’m sure some Scots had mastered the wheel by 1700 but that doesn’t alter the facts
England was a nascent superpower, with a puissant navy and a booming economy; if Scots had resisted union England would have invaded and conquered and enforced union, with an early form of The Tank, so as to close the back door to France. But probably it would never have come to that, as the canny Scots would have seen the benefits of uniting with such a rising power. And, indeed, Scots and Scotland did well out of the British Empire
Certainly the English Caribbean slave and sugar economy was established by 1710, and Scotland wanted its share of that bonanza, hence the Darien scheme.
OH, quite so. But so did much of Europe, not that that is any justification. And they didn't feel thje need for enosis with England.
But what Scotland lacked in 1710 was not natural resources or skilled workers, but rather access to capital and trade routes.
Cromwells suppression of the Dutch meant that England had become the major trading power, at least in Protestant Europe. The nautical, sugar, and Indian trade had generated the capital markets and trade routes that were the opportunity for Scottish business. It was that convergence that created the Eighteenth Century convergence of Scottish and English interests.
Obviously things have moved on somewhat over the three centuries.
Capital was definitely an issue, but workers would have been an issue, too
Scotland’s population in 1700 was about 1m, England’s was about 5-6m
Scotland cannot naturally support a large population, it is too cold and wet and northerly (we see that even now). England is more fertile and can feed more people. It is that simple
Even if Scotland has managed to industrialise as fast as England and as powerfully, how would it have manned the factories?
It was never going to happen, some form of union with an ever-mightier England was inevitable. It is arguable that the peaceful union of 1707 was a lot better than some sanguinary English conquest 20-60 years down the line
Slight problem with your logic. (a) massive Scottish investment in high farming during the 18th century = fewer farmworkers, more food (b) fewer people = fewer to feed
Crivvens, talk about missing the point
Factories in the 18th-19th centuries required huge amounts of manpower. Scotland simply did not possess that. There is a reason the Romans got as far as Hadrian’s Wall and then thought Fuck it, can’t be arsed (and that was in an age of kinder climates)
England as the naturally senior, older, greater power was always going to prevail in 1700. It casts no shame on Scotland to say it is perpetually destined to be inferior
Romans got as far north as the Antonine Wall, actually.
Further than that, they got as far as the Orkneys.
Shetlands perhaps? Not sure.
Roman trade goods are found all over. Hadrians Wall was as much a customs and trading station as a military one.
South Carolina: https://twitter.com/ABCNews4/status/1542931041723326466 The state now asks abortion providers to send sheriff's offices reports of women who were impregnated by rape or incest and are trying to terminate the pregnancy
i’ve never had an abortion but my access to healthcare has changed because Roe was overturned.
I have #Lupus which is an inflammatory autoimmune disease that causes my immune system to attack my organs, joints, skin, and muscles.
i take #Methotrexate as one of my treatments
i received an email from my rheumatologist today that they are stopping all refills of methotrexate because it is considered an abortifacient.
Methotrexate is a form of chemotherapy. But in reduced quantities it can be taken long term to help with many autoimmune diseases.
Roe was overturned 6 days ago. in less than one week i lost access to healthcare that i need because the drug could be used to induce abortions.
it took 144 hours for me to have less safe healthcare because Roe was overturned.
Don’t tell me you’re pro-life.
That does not automatically follow, it is possible to allow Methotrexate specifically to treat autoimmune diseases but not to induce abortions
It does very much follow. You would't get insurance if you are a doctor giving it to women of childbearing years.
Legally you could do, logically there is nothing contrary with not being able to apply it to women to induce abortions and being able to apply it to women with autoimmune diseases
What if they have an autoimmune disease and are also pregnant?
Best stay off methotrexate then, it is teratogenic. Azathioprine is thought to have a better safety profile, but conversion takes time.
Worth noting too that uncontrolled lupus causes miscarriages too.
Very dodgy drug, Methotrexate!
Bloody useful in cancer treatments though.
The difference between pharmaceutical treatment and poisoning is largely one of dosage.
Which is why, as a pharmacy student 60+ years ago, I had to learn the dose of every drug in the pharmacopoeia!
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
HAve a look again. For instance, the Tranent and Cockenzie Waggonway.
I’m sure some Scots had mastered the wheel by 1700 but that doesn’t alter the facts
England was a nascent superpower, with a puissant navy and a booming economy; if Scots had resisted union England would have invaded and conquered and enforced union, with an early form of The Tank, so as to close the back door to France. But probably it would never have come to that, as the canny Scots would have seen the benefits of uniting with such a rising power. And, indeed, Scots and Scotland did well out of the British Empire
Certainly the English Caribbean slave and sugar economy was established by 1710, and Scotland wanted its share of that bonanza, hence the Darien scheme.
OH, quite so. But so did much of Europe, not that that is any justification. And they didn't feel thje need for enosis with England.
But what Scotland lacked in 1710 was not natural resources or skilled workers, but rather access to capital and trade routes.
Cromwells suppression of the Dutch meant that England had become the major trading power, at least in Protestant Europe. The nautical, sugar, and Indian trade had generated the capital markets and trade routes that were the opportunity for Scottish business. It was that convergence that created the Eighteenth Century convergence of Scottish and English interests.
Obviously things have moved on somewhat over the three centuries.
Capital was definitely an issue, but workers would have been an issue, too
Scotland’s population in 1700 was about 1m, England’s was about 5-6m
Scotland cannot naturally support a large population, it is too cold and wet and northerly (we see that even now). England is more fertile and can feed more people. It is that simple
Even if Scotland has managed to industrialise as fast as England and as powerfully, how would it have manned the factories?
It was never going to happen, some form of union with an ever-mightier England was inevitable. It is arguable that the peaceful union of 1707 was a lot better than some sanguinary English conquest 20-60 years down the line
Slight problem with your logic. (a) massive Scottish investment in high farming during the 18th century = fewer farmworkers, more food (b) fewer people = fewer to feed
Crivvens, talk about missing the point
Factories in the 18th-19th centuries required huge amounts of manpower. Scotland simply did not possess that. There is a reason the Romans got as far as Hadrian’s Wall and then thought Fuck it, can’t be arsed (and that was in an age of kinder climates)
England as the naturally senior, older, greater power was always going to prevail in 1700. It casts no shame on Scotland to say it is perpetually destined to be inferior
'senior' 'older' are historically wrong, but not relevant here anyway. So scratch that.
You're assuming that the Scottish economy would have developed as it did after union of the parliaments. Could have been quite different after 1707 if union had not happened. For instance, it was already - and remained - notably integrated with Scandinavia for a trade in iron and other products.
ANd as for your neo-imperialism, I will merely draw it to your attention, and leave you to consider it in the context of 2022 rather than a terrified London establishment of 1706.
Scotland began to coalesce as a nation in the mid-9th century under the House of Alpin
By that time Bede had already WRITTEN his HISTORY of the English people - completed in 731, a century before Scotland was even an idea. And Bede’s book was a history
“The Ecclesiastical History of the English People (Latin: Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum), written by the Venerable Bede in about AD 731, is a history of the Christian Churches in England, and of England generally; its main focus is on the conflict between the pre-Schism Roman Rite and Celtic Christianity. It was originally composed in Latin, and is believed to have been completed in 731 when Bede was approximately 59 years old. It is considered one of the most important original references on Anglo-Saxon history, and has played a key role in the development of an English national identity.”
So, yes, England is the senior power. The larger, older, nobler, greater. I’m sorry if this irks you emotionally. It’s nuts if it does. This is Dark Age history. Time to move on
Not relevant to 2022, which is what I was saying already.
Inspecting the notion, out of academic interest. it is confusing the *tribe/linguistic grouping* with the *state*. So not relevant. Not to mention the point that Scotland and England's border, being complementary, was necessarily settled at precisely the same moment for both.
Ahistorical nonsense
A frontier is not always an agreed line between equals, it can often demarcate the civilised from the uncivilised, The state from the non-state. It can simply say: cross this border, and here be monsters
Hadrian’s Wall did that. The wall in Game of Thrones is based upon Hadrian’s Wall. Cf the Great Wall of China, the Viking-Norman Pale in Ireland, the various (moving) frontiers in the American West, and so on. Often these were hideous imperial impositions, but they also marked a genuine difference, and falling off, in civilisation. Even now one can sense this around Berwick or Gretna. Something cruder, more brutish, and less sanitary, lies to the north
"A student who is open about their gender identity." WTAF does that mean?
So much fear. I almost feel sorry for them.
I wonder if it means something like the chap in my year at university - wore a dress on occasion, makeup, slept with anything that moved. Seemed happy enough, but was a terrible drinker. Half a pint of beer and he was throwing up everywhere. Insisted on drinking though.
South Carolina: https://twitter.com/ABCNews4/status/1542931041723326466 The state now asks abortion providers to send sheriff's offices reports of women who were impregnated by rape or incest and are trying to terminate the pregnancy
i’ve never had an abortion but my access to healthcare has changed because Roe was overturned.
I have #Lupus which is an inflammatory autoimmune disease that causes my immune system to attack my organs, joints, skin, and muscles.
i take #Methotrexate as one of my treatments
i received an email from my rheumatologist today that they are stopping all refills of methotrexate because it is considered an abortifacient.
Methotrexate is a form of chemotherapy. But in reduced quantities it can be taken long term to help with many autoimmune diseases.
Roe was overturned 6 days ago. in less than one week i lost access to healthcare that i need because the drug could be used to induce abortions.
it took 144 hours for me to have less safe healthcare because Roe was overturned.
Don’t tell me you’re pro-life.
That does not automatically follow, it is possible to allow Methotrexate specifically to treat autoimmune diseases but not to induce abortions
It does very much follow. You would't get insurance if you are a doctor giving it to women of childbearing years.
Legally you could do, logically there is nothing contrary with not being able to apply it to women to induce abortions and being able to apply it to women with autoimmune diseases
What if they have an autoimmune disease and are also pregnant?
That's the point being made by precisely the doctor quoted in this thread. You can't tell till it's too late. HYUFD should think about that ...
Average inflation-adjusted pay was lower in 2021 than in 2009.
That's where 12 years of Tory economic mismanagement gets you.
Alternatively its the toxic legacy of 12 years of Labour economic mismanagement by 2009 that had us living well outside of our means.
That's a Putinesque level of fact-warping.
During the "12 years of Labour economic mismanagement" as you put it, real incomes grew by 22%.
How the fuck can you be blaming Labour for the 12 years of stagnant incomes since 2010? It may have escaped your notice but the Tories have been (supposedly) running the economy through the whole of that period.
Has any democratic nation, in the democratic age, decided - “you know what, independence is shite, I think I’ll fold myself back into xxx”?
I can’t think of any.
Have I invented a new rule? A bit like the Amartya Sen’s realisation that democracies don’t have famines?
What about Scotland seeking the Act of Union in 1707?
Scotland didn't actually seek the Act of Union (it was looking for a Free Trade Agreement in current parlance) but the parliament, initially sceptical, was "convinced" for reasons mostly different from what people today think they were.
The Act of Union happened because of an alignment of circumstances. It wouldn't have happened before 1703 or after 1710.
Bollocks
England was rising to global supremacy, via the Empire and the Industrial Revolution. You think Scotland would have said Oh, we don’t want any of that?
Scotland would have joined at any time from 1700-1900
You do cough up some risible nonsense
"industrial revolution"
Where do you think it was happening?
Staffordshire. Next
HAve a look again. For instance, the Tranent and Cockenzie Waggonway.
I’m sure some Scots had mastered the wheel by 1700 but that doesn’t alter the facts
England was a nascent superpower, with a puissant navy and a booming economy; if Scots had resisted union England would have invaded and conquered and enforced union, with an early form of The Tank, so as to close the back door to France. But probably it would never have come to that, as the canny Scots would have seen the benefits of uniting with such a rising power. And, indeed, Scots and Scotland did well out of the British Empire
I see you are unaware of such things as the Carron Ironworks, for instance, and the concentration of coal, limestone, and blackband iron ore in the Central Belt. Industry would undoubtedly have developed in parallel with the Shropshire developments, and did: after all, the Scots didn;t suffer the penalty of the English university system (remember: it was Quakers and Nonconformists in ENgland who were crucial). It's sad to see you so proud of threats of invasion and economic blockade and suppression, as if they somehow glorified the union.
It’s realpolitik
England was becoming a greatly powerful country; an independent Scotland would have been a major irritant if not a threat, so England would have moved to eliminate the problem, with a mixture of bribes and bullying. This is what happened in 1707 but if it hadn’t happened then it would have happened after
If the roles were reversed do you imagine for a second Scotland, the senior and greater power, would not have done the same to England? Would Scotland have been uniquely moral amongst the nations? Pff
England was *not* greatly powerful.That was the point. It was a frightened, stupid, muddled, thuggish bully which lashed out. Scotland was not a threat, except insofar as the English had imported an alien dynasty and insisted thsat the Scots should also conform.
Your second point is irrelevant. "It's all your fault for being smaller than me" - the classic whine of the bully at his victim through the ages.
Another instance to ponder: the crucial thermodynamic and chemical insights of the 18th century, on whjich the industrial revolution were founded, were in part mediated by research at Scottish universities. And later. Why do you think the SI units for work output, energy, temperature, capacitance, and so on are named after Scots and after English nonconformists (i.e. those who worked against the flow of English established society?
The inferiority complex on display here is off the dial. And I used to consider you one of the saner Nats. Lol
"inferioruty complex" my sharny arse.
I think everyone accepts that endless crowing about one's ability to buy a plane ticket, a neurotcally examined ancestry and the trumpetting of the cultural significance of the English language as used by proper authors is a sure sign of a confident and assured identity.
Comments
...but the industrial Revolution was Shropshire rather than Staffordshire.
Yes, @SeaShantyIrish2 i was much too harsh on you last night.
Don’t buy it
https://twitter.com/BeccaLizz/status/1542684777693814784
https://twitter.com/BeccaLizz/status/1542684795431534592
i’ve never had an abortion but my access to healthcare has changed because Roe was overturned.
I have #Lupus which is an inflammatory autoimmune disease that causes my immune system to attack my organs, joints, skin, and muscles.
i take #Methotrexate as one of my treatments
i received an email from my rheumatologist today that they are stopping all refills of methotrexate because it is considered an abortifacient.
Methotrexate is a form of chemotherapy. But in reduced quantities it can be taken long term to help with many autoimmune diseases.
Roe was overturned 6 days ago. in less than one week i lost access to healthcare that i need because the drug could be used to induce abortions.
it took 144 hours for me to have less safe healthcare because Roe was overturned.
Don’t tell me you’re pro-life.
I am dubious too but I am not certain Butler is wrong.
25% of Britons over 65 are millionaires?
Just doesn’t add up
According to Credit Suisse there are 2.5 million millionaires in the UK; meanwhile there are about 13m pensioners. 25% of 13m is 3.25m…
Something is missing
Cromwells suppression of the Dutch meant that England had become the major trading power, at least in Protestant Europe. The nautical, sugar, and Indian trade had generated the capital markets and trade routes that were the opportunity for Scottish business. It was that convergence that created the Eighteenth Century convergence of Scottish and English interests.
Obviously things have moved on somewhat over the three centuries.
How hard, in the South certainly, and in other places too, is reach over £1m in ALL assets by 65, after twenty years of massive house price inflation?
Surely do-able for 25%.
Before the nations were frequently at War, indeed often by Scottish invasion of England as much as English invasion of Scotland
Or is it someone who can raise £1 million in cash in short order?
If the first, many pensioners probably do qualify via their houses and the money underpinning their annuities. £3,000 a year in pension = £100,000 in savings. On that basis, my father is a millionaire.
If the second, you're clearly right to be sceptical.
For the record - it's the second, but Butler's probably using the first definition.
Readers have asked us to check a surprising figure in the Sunday Times Style supplement, that one in five over-65s in the UK is classified as a millionaire according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). This claim has been going around since the data was first published in 2019.
The truth is a bit more complex, and depends on what you count as a millionaire.
Data the ONS collected between 2016 and 2018 shows that one in five households (22%) in Great Britain, where the main householder (the person responsible for household finances) is over 65, have a household wealth of over a million pounds.
The data also shows that one in four people aged over 65 (25%) lived in a household with a total wealth of over a million pounds.
So a household with two 70-year-olds and a combined wealth of a million pounds would fall into these millionaire categories, but whether you’d class both as millionaires is arguably a matter of opinion, and depends on things such as whether they own the assets jointly or solely.
As the data is a bit old by now, you might expect more over 65s to live in millionaire households now than did a few years ago, given the proportion of households with wealth over a million pounds has increased over time.
And while the Sunday Times’s article brings up the statistic in the context of talking about the disposable income of the baby boomers, these figures aren’t about how much money people have in the bank.
The ONS’s definition doesn’t just include disposable financial wealth, but other forms of wealth such as property value and pension pots.
https://fullfact.org/economy/millionaire-pensioners/
#WorkingClassNortherner
Plenty of time to attain millionaire-hood!
Scotland’s population in 1700 was about 1m, England’s was about 5-6m
Scotland cannot naturally support a large population, it is too cold and wet and northerly (we see that even now). England is more fertile and can feed more people. It is that simple
Even if Scotland has managed to industrialise as fast as England and as powerfully, how would it have manned the factories?
It was never going to happen, some form of union with an ever-mightier England was inevitable. It is arguable that the peaceful union of 1707 was a lot better than some sanguinary English conquest 20-60 years down the line
Can still be prescribed to men though.
(a) massive Scottish investment in high farming during the 18th century = fewer farmworkers, more food
(b) fewer people = fewer to feed
The important point is the graph in the article is income not assets.
https://www.ft.com/content/60d77d08-b20e-11e4-b380-00144feab7de
What a silly statistic
I read down the thread further, and found a Gofundme.
Factories in the 18th-19th centuries required huge amounts of manpower. Scotland simply did not possess that. There is a reason the Romans got as far as Hadrian’s Wall and then thought Fuck it, can’t be arsed (and that was in an age of kinder climates)
England as the naturally senior, older, greater power was always going to prevail in 1700. It casts no shame on Scotland to say it is perpetually destined to be inferior
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8456/
Yes, it is households, and even then it is somewhat questionable. A shonky stat, tut tut the ASI for using it
You're assuming that the Scottish economy would have developed as it did after union of the parliaments. Could have been quite different after 1707 if union had not happened. For instance, it was already - and remained - notably integrated with Scandinavia for a trade in iron and other products.
ANd as for your neo-imperialism, I will merely draw it to your attention, and leave you to consider it in the context of 2022 rather than a terrified London establishment of 1706.
It's bollocks to make up some fake stuff about Romans and use it in an arguiment about 1706, anyway.
Worth noting too that uncontrolled lupus causes miscarriages too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Alpin
By that time Bede had already WRITTEN his HISTORY of the English people - completed in 731, a century before Scotland was even an idea. And Bede’s book was a history
“The Ecclesiastical History of the English People (Latin: Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum), written by the Venerable Bede in about AD 731, is a history of the Christian Churches in England, and of England generally; its main focus is on the conflict between the pre-Schism Roman Rite and Celtic Christianity. It was originally composed in Latin, and is believed to have been completed in 731 when Bede was approximately 59 years old. It is considered one of the most important original references on Anglo-Saxon history, and has played a key role in the development of an English national identity.”
So, yes, England is the senior power. The larger, older, nobler, greater. I’m sorry if this irks you emotionally. It’s nuts if it does. This is Dark Age history. Time to move on
I was teaching A-level politics and shared the recent tweet I saw here: 'the Supreme Court believes life begins at conception and ends with a mass shooting.'
It did more to explain the fucked up nature of the Yankee judiciary than a hundred seminars.
And they all thought it was a brilliant summary!
That's where 12 years of Tory economic mismanagement gets you.
https://twitter.com/SachinNakrani/status/1542932052529582081
Inspecting the notion, out of academic interest. it is confusing the *tribe/linguistic grouping* with the *state*. So not relevant. Not to mention the point that Scotland and England's border, being complementary, was necessarily settled at precisely the same moment for both.
And your other point is? One source of funding is cut off, she looks for alternatives. Whereas you would....what?
How long did you live in the States?
A frontier is not always an agreed line between equals, it can often demarcate the civilised from the uncivilised, The state from the non-state. It can simply say: cross this border, and here be monsters
Hadrian’s Wall did that. The wall in Game of Thrones is based upon Hadrian’s Wall. Cf the Great Wall of China, the Viking-Norman Pale in Ireland, the various (moving) frontiers in the American West, and so on. Often these were hideous imperial impositions, but they also marked a genuine difference, and falling off, in civilisation. Even now one can sense this around Berwick or Gretna. Something cruder, more brutish, and less sanitary, lies to the north
I'm meant to be on the "grow the cake and the questions about allocation become trivial" side. But these ain't normal times.
Guns could be used for abortions….
{hot fuzz}IDEA!{/hot fuzz}
During the "12 years of Labour economic mismanagement" as you put it, real incomes grew by 22%.
How the fuck can you be blaming Labour for the 12 years of stagnant incomes since 2010? It may have escaped your notice but the Tories have been (supposedly) running the economy through the whole of that period.