NationStates Jolt Archive

As a Scot, I am tired of the English centric attitude within the UK. It always strikes me as ridiculous that when England do well in international endeavours, it's England who gets the credit. Yet, when similar successes are attributable to Scotland, it's usually seen a British success.

For a country of only 5 million population , Scotland has brought much to the world. It was even a Scot who founded the Bank of England, invented Television, the telephone, discovered penicillin.

I call on England and the English to learn more about the other countries within the UK and respect the achievements and contributions that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have brought to the UK.

The following is only a selection of Scottish achievements:

James Chalmers (1782-1853)
Invented the adhesive postage stamp

Sir Hugh Dalrymple (1700-1753)
Invented the hollow-pipe drainage system

David Douglas (1798-1834)
Botanist after whom the Douglas Fir is named

Patrick Ferguson (1744-1780)
Invented the breech loading rifle

James Gregory (1638-1675)
Invented the reflecting telescope

John McAdam (1756-1836)
Developed the process of covering roads with small broken stones (Tarmacadam)

Charles MacIntosh (1766-1843)
Added naptha to rubber to create the Macintosh raincoat

Andrew Meikle (1719-1811)
Invented the threshing machine

John Napier (1550-1617)
Developed the concept of logarithms and invented the decimal point!

Richard Noble
Holds the World land speed record

William Paterson (1658-1719)
Founded the Bank of England!

Sir James Young Simpson (1811-1870)
Pioneered the use of chloroform in anaesthetics

James Small (1730-1793)
Invented the iron plough

William Symmington (1763-1831)
Developed the first steam powered marine engine

Robert William Thomson (1822-1873)
Invented the vulcanised rubber pneumatic tyre, patented the fountain pen and patented the steam traction engine

Sir Robert Alexander Watson-Watt (1892-1973)
Developed RADAR

John Logie Baird (1888-1946)
Invented the television

Sir Alexander Flemming (1881-1955)
Discovered penicillin

Alexander Graham Bell (1847-1922)
Invented the telephone

James Young (1811-1883)
Developed the process of refining oil

Sir David Brewster (1781-1868)
Invented the kaleidoscope

Sir James Dewar (1842-1923)
Invented the vacuum flask

John Boyd Dunlop (1840-1921)
Further developed the vulcanised rubber pneumatic tyre (Dunlop Tyres)

Thomas Telford (1757-1835)
The "Colossus of Roads!" Built many of the first roads

Rev. Patrick Bell (1800-1869)
Invented the reaping machine, which led to the combine harvester

Joseph Black (1728-1799)
Developed the concept of latent heat and discovered Carbon Dioxide

James Braid (1795-1860)
Pioneered hypnosis

Sir Dugald Clerk (1854-1932)
Invented the two-stroke Clerk Cycle Gas Engine

Sir William Fairburn (1789-1874)
Developed the use of tubular steel in construction

Rev. Alexander Forsyth (1769-1848)
Invented the percussion cap which later became the bullet

William Murdock (1754-1839)
Invented coal-gas lighting

James Pillans (1778-1864)
Invented the blackboard and colored chalk

John Shepherd-Barron (1925- )
Inventor of the ATM

Sir Sandford Flemming (1827-1915)
Created the World time zones

Alexander Wood (1817-1884)
Invented the hypodermic needle

John J R MacLeod (1876-1935)
Helped to discover insulin

Henry Faulds (1843-1930)
Created the process of criminal fingerprinting

Ian Donald (1910-1987)
Invented the ultrasound scanner

John Anderson (1882-1958)
Father of the Anderson Air Raid Shelter

Sir Charles Thomson Rees Wilson (1869-1959)
Created the Wilson Cloud Chamber and carried out extensive studies on particle physics

I call on England and the English to learn more about the other countries within the UK and respect the achievements and contributions that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have brought to the UK.


But it's so much easier to pretend we did it all!!!

Ah, so?

BTW: the word is "Anglocentric".

Ah, so?

BTW: the word is "Anglocentric".That's an arrogant response, indicated not just by "Ah. so?" but by your pedantism on my having to use language of your choosing.

As I said, my concern is with English centric attitudes. After all, we're talking about the country, not the culture. Do you understand me now?

For a country of only 5 million population , Scotland has brought much to the world.
Deepfried marsbars for example.



John Logie Baird (1888-1946)
Invented the television

Paul Nipkow (1860-1940)

I make a point of saying 'British,' not English. To be fair though, the Scots are probably the worst offenders in the whole country; there's no chance of a 'Scottish' achievement ever being 'British' to the Scots.

I think we should have British football and sports team as well.

I make a point of saying 'British,' not English.

Similar to me, born in England, proud to be British :)

That's an arrogant response, indicated not just by "Ah. so?" but by your pedantism on my having to use language of your choosing.

As I said, my concern is with English centric attitudes. After all, we're talking about the country, not the culture. Do you understand me now?

"Anglo-" does not stand for the culture. If it does, it is only because it stands for the country or the population first and foremost.

As to my "ah, so?", I genuinely demand an answer. What does that list prove or disprove? What does it mean in the context of a Great Britain? Is it meant to signify that achievements in the UK should be regarded as British or Scottish/English/Irish? And, most important, are achievements "Scottish", "English", "British", "Kenyan", or are they individual? Do you feel responsible for them, or made responsible by them, or do they say anything about you?
That is why one would have to ask "so". That, and because you assume that people can only disagree on the shape of an idea, and not its content (ie: "achievements are always national, we just don't agree on which nationality they belong to").

I make a point of saying 'British,' not English. To be fair though, the Scots are probably the worst offenders in the whole country; there's no chance of a 'Scottish' achievement ever being 'British' to the Scots.

I think we should have British football and sports team as well.The reason being, that to many English minds (and to be fair, abroad also) British is the same as English. As I Scot, I recognise that the UK a union of four countries. If England do well, as in England winning the World Cup in 1966, you will never here that a British team won it. That's fair, it was an Engish achievement. However, when Celtic won the European Cup in 1967, it was a British team who won that..........

"Celtic's historic victory in Europe should never be understated, and can certainly never be taken from them; not only were they the first ""British side"" to win the trophy, but the achievement of both reaching the final and winning the European Cup with a team comprised entirely of home-grown, local players (they were all born within a 30-mile radius of Celtic Park), has never been repeated in European football."

Link: "http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/sportscotland/asportingnation/article/0045/print.shtml"

The reason being, that to many English minds (and to be fair, abroad also) British is the same as English. As I Scot, I recognise that the UK a union of four countries. If England do well, as in England winning the World Cup in 1966, you will never here that a British team won it. That's fair, it was an Engish achievement. However, when Celtic won the European Cup in 1967, it was a British team who won that..........

"Celtic's historic victory in Europe should never be understated, and can certainly never be taken from them; not only were they the first ""British side"" to win the trophy, but the achievement of both reaching the final and winning the European Cup with a team comprised entirely of home-grown, local players (they were all born within a 30-mile radius of Celtic Park), has never been repeated in European football."

Link: "http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/sportscotland/asportingnation/article/0045/print.shtml"
Actually, this 'individual nationalism' is a relatively new thing - if you look at the crowd at the 1966 World Cup, you'll see that the huge majority are waving Union Jacks, not the Cross of St George.

I think the decline goes hand in hand with the decline of Britain as a power; when we ruled the waves, everyone was proud to be British; but now, there doesn't seem to be a 'British' identity anymore, and so people are identifying more with their home nation. I wonder how far it will go; I think the break up of the Union is a terrible idea.

"Anglo-" does not stand for the culture. If it does, it is only because it stands for the country or the population first and foremost.

As to my "ah, so?", I genuinely demand an answer. What does that list prove or disprove? What does it mean in the context of a Great Britain? Is it meant to signify that achievements in the UK should be regarded as British or Scottish/English/Irish? And, most important, are achievements "Scottish", "English", "British", "Kenyan", or are they individual? Do you feel responsible for them, or made responsible by them, or do they say anything about you?
That is why one would have to ask "so". That, and because you assume that people can only disagree on the shape of an idea, and not its content (ie: "achievements are always national, we just don't agree on which nationality they belong to").Never heard of the W.A.S.P. culture in the USA? Some WASP Americans form part of the political/economic "elite" in the USA. They are not English!

As a Scot, I take pride in the achievements of my country. Those who have brought innovation can be respected for that. As part of that repect, a recognition of who they are, where they came from is important.

Yet you want it both ways. You take it upon yourself to "educate" me on my terms and then seek to debunk the terms that I use. Just what exactly are you trying to say?

Actually, this 'individual nationalism' is a relatively new thing - if you look at the crowd at the 1966 World Cup, you'll see that the huge majority are waving Union Jacks, not the Cross of St George.
Or is it the same thing, even worse: those English who thought/think they are Britain over the rest (consider what kept Ulster inside the UK)? Should British flags be around for English events? After all, would you see/expect British flags for the Scottish national team - and should they be there?

identity is always hotley debated. are you from the north/ south england, the cities or highland in scotland. lately this has extended even further are you european. identify yourself how you wish. the problem occurs when other people take offence to your defination.

im english, british, european, white, middle class, tall, brown hair ...

you change one my outlook changes. scotland get over it, england shut up just live

Actually, this 'individual nationalism' is a relatively new thing - if you look at the crowd at the 1966 World Cup, you'll see that the huge majority are waving Union Jacks, not the Cross of St George.

I think the decline goes hand in hand with the decline of Britain as a power; when we ruled the waves, everyone was proud to be British; but now, there doesn't seem to be a 'British' identity anymore, and so people are identifying more with their home nation. I wonder how far it will go; I think the break up of the Union is a terrible idea.As I said, many English confuse Britain with England (thank you). As to the prospect of a break-up of the union. I think this would be wonderful for scotland. I'd much rather be part of a Fedaration in Europe, than a second class backwater in the UK

As I said, many English confuse Britain with England (thank you). As to the prospect of a break-up of the union. I think this would be wonderful for scotland. I'd much rather be part of a Fedaration in Europe, than a second class backwater in the UK
Oh dear, a Scottish nationalist. And here was me thinking you just had a bit of hurt national pride. :rolleyes:

Scotland couldn't survive outside of the Union, and an independant Scotland within a federal Europe only happens in the mind of the SNP, I'm afraid.

As a Scot, I am tired of the English centric attitude within the UK. It always strikes me as ridiculous that when England do well in international endeavours, it's England who gets the credit. Yet, when similar successes are attributable to Scotland, it's usually seen a British success.

For a country of only 5 million population, Scotland has brought much to the world. It was even a Scot who founded the Bank of England, invented Television, the telephone, discovered penicillin.
Fine, but a list of achievements by Scottish people doesn't prove anything. The population of England is 10 times that of Scotland, and I'm sure I could come up with a list 10 times as long as yours without that much difficulty.

For a country of only 50 million population, England has brought much to the world.

Maybe Scotland should have tried to build a worldwide Empire when it had the chance, then it would be recognised independently of England. Oh, wait, it did. Darien mean anything to you?

As I said, many English confuse Britain with England (thank you). As to the prospect of a break-up of the union. I think this would be wonderful for scotland. I'd much rather be part of a Fedaration in Europe, than a second class backwater in the UK

Yup, and watch when you have no industry and your economy crashes...that would be a very good idea now wouldn't it.

The reason being, that to many English minds (and to be fair, abroad also) British is the same as English. As I Scot, I recognise that the UK a union of four countries. If England do well, as in England winning the World Cup in 1966, you will never here that a British team won it. That's fair, it was an Engish achievement. However, when Celtic won the European Cup in 1967, it was a British team who won that..........

"Celtic's historic victory in Europe should never be understated, and can certainly never be taken from them; not only were they the first ""British side"" to win the trophy, but the achievement of both reaching the final and winning the European Cup with a team comprised entirely of home-grown, local players (they were all born within a 30-mile radius of Celtic Park), has never been repeated in European football."

Link: "http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/sportscotland/asportingnation/article/0045/print.shtml"
That article doesn't support your point. Celtic were the first British side to win the trophy. That includes England/Scotland/Wales/NI.
Are you just looking for anything that proves your theory without putting things in context on purpose?

Never heard of the W.A.S.P. culture in the USA? Some WASP Americans form part of the political/economic "elite" in the USA. They are not English!

Oh, yeah? Well, what if I say that, because people use Franco-Canadians/French Canadians and Franco-Belgians/Belgian French and Franco-Swiss/French Swiss, "Franco-" and "French" should not stand for France anymore? Hispano-Americans, of course, makes it improper to use "Hispano-" for Spain! Right?

As a Scot, I take pride in the achievements of my country. Those who have brought innovation can be respected for that. As part of that repect, a recognition of who they are, where they came from is important.

Read my post again: my questions where why you were proud, according to what, and answering to whom? From my experience, people who identify with cultural nationalism are so unfamiliar with the alternative, that they assume all who are contradicting them are enforcing some variant of the same thesis (perhaps, some other nationalism).

Yet you want it both ways. You take it upon yourself to "educate" me on my terms and then seek to debunk the terms that I use. Just what exactly are you trying to say?

I'm not debunking anything. I want to know why you think the topic of "Scotland's achievements and I" covers ground in a debate - note my previous questions.

As a Scot, I am tired of the English centric attitude within the UK. It always strikes me as ridiculous that when England do well in international endeavours, it's England who gets the credit. Yet, when similar successes are attributable to Scotland, it's usually seen a British success.

For a country of only 5 million population , Scotland has brought much to the world. It was even a Scot who founded the Bank of England, invented Television, the telephone, discovered penicillin.

I call on England and the English to learn more about the other countries within the UK and respect the achievements and contributions that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have brought to the UK.

The following is only a selection of Scottish achievements:

-snip-


James Clerk Maxwell is the only Scot worth noting and he isn't even on your list!

Scotland and England merged when James VI became James I. The English parliament was outraged by the thought that they would be run by a Scot.

Scottish MPs can vote in the British parliament and introduce laws that affect only England. English MPs can not vote in the Scottish Parliament.

The English are happy to claim Scottish victories as our own. 4 years ago when the Scots won the gold medal for curling - excellent for Britain! But England winning anything - it's a tragedy for Scotland.

Scotland and England merged when James VI became James I. The English parliament was outraged by the thought that they would be run by a Scot.

Scottish MPs can vote in the British parliament and introduce laws that affect only England. English MPs can not vote in the Scottish Parliament.

The English are happy to claim Scottish victories as our own. 4 years ago when the Scots won the gold medal for curling - excellent for Britain! But England winning anything - it's a tragedy for Scotland.

Nope. England and Scotland 'merged' with the Act of Union in 1707 (yep, next year we'll have ruled Scotland for 300 years. Suck on that). So we had a Scottish king before that? And? We had a Welsh king in 1485 and a French dude on the throne in 1066. We've got a bloody German on the throne at the moment - it's never bothered us.

Fine, but a list of achievements by Scottish people doesn't prove anything. The population of England is 10 times that of Scotland, and I'm sure I could come up with a list 10 times as long as yours without that much difficulty.

For a country of only 50 million population, England has brought much to the world.

Maybe Scotland should have tried to build a worldwide Empire when it had the chance, then it would be recognised independently of England. Oh, wait, it did. Darien mean anything to you?Don't brag about getting access to a list of English achievements comparable with Scotland's (only 10 times larger)....do it.

To it's shame, Scotland did try to create it's own colonial empire "Darien" was it's first colony. I think though, you conveniently forgot to mention that the English, with the collusion of the Spanish did everything they could to destroy it and succeeded. See a pattern emerging?

Nope. England and Scotland 'merged' with the Act of Union in 1707 (yep, next year we'll have ruled Scotland for 300 years. Suck on that). So we had a Scottish king before that? And? We had a Welsh king in 1485 and a French dude on the throne in 1066. We've got a bloody German on the throne at the moment - it's never bothered us.and who was it who created the Bank of england? Duh!

Oh dear, a Scottish nationalist. And here was me thinking you just had a bit of hurt national pride. :rolleyes:

Scotland couldn't survive outside of the Union, and an independant Scotland within a federal Europe only happens in the mind of the SNP, I'm afraid.I have to bow to your sound economic analysis (not).

Of course Scotland would do much better within a fedarated Europe. It can't get any worse within the union, can it?

I have to bow to your sound economic analysis (not).

Of course Scotland would do much better within a fedarated Europe. It can't get any worse within the union, can it?
So you want to replace a system in which Scotland gets a disproportianal voice and amount of funding with one that is so corrupt that 65% of all its money cannot be accounted for?

Great economics, that.

I have to bow to your sound economic analysis (not).

Of course Scotland would do much better within a fedarated Europe. It can't get any worse within the union, can it?

Yes, considering if you left the union and went to a federalist europe, you would be joing countries who have an average economic growth of 0.5% (if not greater) less than that which the UK has currently.

and who was it who created the Bank of england? Duh!
I don't quite see how that was a reply to the post of mine you quoted...

And on the subject of Darien, you could have created your first colony in a place where there weren't still native tribes, and where there wasn't a great big bloody swamp!

James Clerk Maxwell is the only Scot worth noting and he isn't even on your list!

There are actually a couple of others worthy of notice:

Adam Smith and David Hume

Neither are on his list.

Scotland, along with Wales, has been a ball and chain around the English economy for decades. I remember an old joke in Viz that they should be both be granted full independence immediately and be given Newcastle and Liverpool as respective going-away presents.

Scotland and England merged when James VI became James I. The English parliament was outraged by the thought that they would be run by a Scot.
Haha, so wrong it isn't even true.

Scotland and England merged in 1707 when the English Parliament passed the Alien Act (1705) and fucked the Scottish, so the Scots wanted to join a Union (not to mention the failure of the Darien scheme which crippled the Scottish economy). The English wanted a Union so the Act of Settlement (1701) would apply in Scotland, and a Protestant succession would be guaranteed in both Kingdoms.

Anyhow, for Northern Ireland...for the size of us I think we've had a disproportionate number of achievements and great people.

Inventors and scientists like Lord Kelvin (Kelvin scale), Harry Ferguson (invented the first widely used tractor and the modern form of 4 wheel drive), James Martin (invented the ejector seat), Frank Partridge (invented the portable defibrilator), John Stewart Bell (Bell's Theorem in quantum physics), Jocelyn Bell Burnel (discovered quasars).

Then there's great musicians like Van Morisson, The Undertones, Stiff Little Fingers, James Galway, and Brian Kennedy (shudder).

For a country of only 5 million population , Scotland has brought much to the world.

[...]

David Douglas (1798-1834)
Botanist after whom the Douglas Fir is named
The tree might be named after him, but it was known to the native Americans thousands of years before Douglas rediscovered it.

Don't brag about getting access to a list of English achievements comparable with Scotland's (only 10 times larger)....do it.

To it's shame, Scotland did try to create it's own colonial empire "Darien" was it's first colony. I think though, you conveniently forgot to mention that the English, with the collusion of the Spanish did everything they could to destroy it and succeeded. See a pattern emerging?
Yeah, conveniently. The English had a bloody good reason for appeasing the Spanish - we were at war with the French, and didn't want another war against another militarily strong nation.
Also (conveniently) you seem to have neglected to mention the fact that the English gave a grant to the Scottish government in order to cover the money raised from the Scottish people to fund the Darien expedition.

400 achievements by the English? I'll start it off and let others continue:
First practical steam engine, Edward Somerset, 1663
Laws of Motion, Isaac Newton, 1687
Newtonian Telescope, Isaac Newton, c.1671
Universal Joint, Robert Hooke, c.1684
First Hearing Aid, Robert Hooke, c.1680
St. Paul's Cathedral, Christopher Wren, 1675-1708
Shakespeare's Plays, William Shakespeare, 1590-1612
'Computer' (Analytical Engine), Charles Babbage, 1837

Only another 392 to go...

Alexander Graham Bell (1847-1922)
Invented the telephone
There's a difference between patenting something and inventing it. See:

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

First practical steam engine, Edward Somerset, 1663
Laws of Motion, Isaac Newton, 1687
Newtonian Telescope, Isaac Newton, c.1671
Universal Joint, Robert Hooke, c.1684
First Hearing Aid, Robert Hooke, c.1680
St. Paul's Cathedral, Christopher Wren, 1675-1708
Shakespeare's Plays, William Shakespeare, 1590-1612
'Computer' (Analytical Engine), Charles Babbage, 1837

Only another 392 to go...
ok, I'll try a few:

Lead Pensil 1564
Sulphur Tipped Matches 1570
Flushing Toilet 1597
Mine Railway 1604
Submarine 1620
Slide Rule 1621
Coal Burning Oven 1635
Micrometer 1639
Syringe 1659
Cheque Book 1660
Cheddar Cheese 1666
Minute Hand for Clock 1670
Lead Crystal 1674
Weight Driven Pendulum Clock 1675
Universal Joint 1676
Phosphorus Matches 1680
Steam Water Pump 1698
Tuning Fork 1711
Steam Engine 1712
Diving Bell 1717
Spinning Machines 1733
Navigational Clock 1740
Jigsaw Puzzle 1750
Sextant 1757
Carbonated Water 1768
Sandwich 1769
Steam Roller 1783
Domestic Gas Lighting 1800
Steam Locomotive 1804
Arc Lamp 1807
Precision Lathe 1810
Miners' Lamp 1815
Photography 1816
Electromagnet 1823
Passenger Railway 1825
Microphone 1827
Electric Dynamo 1831
Refrigeration 1834
Propeller 1835
Mechanical Calculator 1835
Fuel Cell 1839
Postage Stamp 1840

ok, that's as far as 1850...

Only 350 to go!

ok, I'll try a few: -snip-
Don't suppose you could get names as well?

Don't suppose you could get names as well?
Not on a list that long. :p

Here's the page though:

http://www.krysstal.com/inventions.html#11

Yup, and watch when you have no industry and your economy crashes...that would be a very good idea now wouldn't it.We used to have a steel industry, car manufacturing, major shipbuilding areas. The predominately English Tory Government of the 80's destroyed all that already.

Funny that during this time, Scotland repeatedly voted for a Labour administration, at one time there were no Tory MP's in Scotland. Yet we seem to have a "disproportionate" influence on the Westminster parliament. Is that argument for real? I know youy didn't say this but others have.

Oh, yeah? Well, what if I say that, because people use Franco-Canadians/French Canadians and Franco-Belgians/Belgian French and Franco-Swiss/French Swiss, "Franco-" and "French" should not stand for France anymore? Hispano-Americans, of course, makes it improper to use "Hispano-" for Spain! Right?



Read my post again: my questions where why you were proud, according to what, and answering to whom? From my experience, people who identify with cultural nationalism are so unfamiliar with the alternative, that they assume all who are contradicting them are enforcing some variant of the same thesis (perhaps, some other nationalism).



I'm not debunking anything. I want to know why you think the topic of "Scotland's achievements and I" covers ground in a debate - note my previous questions.Your still not making much sense. Why am I proud of my fellow Scots achievements, I gave you the answer, you are nitpicking on the reasons for pride. That is not an issue under discussion, as it's more a philosophical concern, please feel free to start a topic around this if you wish.

Haha, so wrong it isn't even true.

Scotland and England merged in 1707 when the English Parliament passed the Alien Act (1705) and fucked the Scottish, so the Scots wanted to join a Union (not to mention the failure of the Darien scheme which crippled the Scottish economy). The English wanted a Union so the Act of Settlement (1701) would apply in Scotland, and a Protestant succession would be guaranteed in both Kingdoms.

Anyhow, for Northern Ireland...for the size of us I think we've had a disproportionate number of achievements and great people.

Inventors and scientists like Lord Kelvin (Kelvin scale), Harry Ferguson (invented the first widely used tractor and the modern form of 4 wheel drive), James Martin (invented the ejector seat), Frank Partridge (invented the portable defibrilator), John Stewart Bell (Bell's Theorem in quantum physics), Jocelyn Bell Burnel (discovered quasars).

Then there's great musicians like Van Morisson, The Undertones, Stiff Little Fingers, James Galway, and Brian Kennedy (shudder).The scots didn't want to join the union, the nobles, lackeys of the english were paid to enact the union in the Scottish Parliam net. Guess who paid the 30 pieces of silver to the scottish nobles? The very same scots who didn't want to join with england in the first place. The hard facts are that through english chicanery, Scotland really became one of the first colonies of the burgeoning english empire.

Oh do hush, you Scottish pedantic drone. No one cares about Scotland.

...

Well, actually, I do. A lot. Since I'm part Scottish. =/

In all seriousness, though, don't you think you're taking it a wee bit far?

Yeah, conveniently. The English had a bloody good reason for appeasing the Spanish - we were at war with the French, and didn't want another war against another militarily strong nation.
Also (conveniently) you seem to have neglected to mention the fact that the English gave a grant to the Scottish government in order to cover the money raised from the Scottish people to fund the Darien expedition.

400 achievements by the English? I'll start it off and let others continue:
First practical steam engine, Edward Somerset, 1663
Laws of Motion, Isaac Newton, 1687
Newtonian Telescope, Isaac Newton, c.1671
Universal Joint, Robert Hooke, c.1684
First Hearing Aid, Robert Hooke, c.1680
St. Paul's Cathedral, Christopher Wren, 1675-1708
Shakespeare's Plays, William Shakespeare, 1590-1612
'Computer' (Analytical Engine), Charles Babbage, 1837

Only another 392 to go...The money was raised by scots, which is why the failure to succeed brought the country into bankruptcy. England knew what it was doing, it did all that it could to destroy the enterprise. Of course England benefited from it's actions, it forced the scottish nobles to capitulate and sell out scotland to the english. The only losers were the scottisjh people.

Also the very first name on your list is a spurious claim, which raises questions about the others.......

"The first steam device was invented by Hero of Alexandria, a Greek, before 300BC, but never utilized as anything other than a toy. While designs had been created by varous people in the meanwhile, the first practical steam engine was patented by James Watt, a Scottish inventor, in 1769. Steam engines are of various types but most are reciprocal piston or turbine devices."

Oh do hush, you Scottish pedantic drone. No one cares about Scotland.

...

Well, actually, I do. A lot. Since I'm part Scottish. =/

In all seriousness, though, don't you think you're taking it a wee bit far?Don't you think you're an offensive little prig? If you don't want to join in the debate, then you are at liberty to opt out. Please do so, if it's too boring for you.

The scots didn't want to join the union, the nobles, lackeys of the english were paid to enact the union in the Scottish Parliam net. Guess who paid the 30 pieces of silver to the scottish nobles? The very same scots who didn't want to join with england in the first place. The hard facts are that through english chicanery, Scotland really became one of the first colonies of the burgeoning english empire.

Bullshit. The Scottish Parliament was fully in support of Union. Most prominent Scots knew that without Union, Scotland was completely fucked. They couldn't compete economically, militarily, or politically with England. And the political system in Scotland was screwed over. All based around factions, with only one strong government forming after the restoration (around Lauderdale in the 1680s(90s?)). This became even more difficult when the King lost control of the Scottish Parliament when the Lords of the Articles were abolished.

Scots had attempted Union several times before, such as with the Union Commission of 1702-03, and every time the English had turned them down.

And then there's the Hamilton motion on succession in 1704, which said there would be no succession settlement until England agreed to a union, which clearly points to the Scottish political elite desiring Union. And that was the only reason the English assented to a Union; to secure the Protestant succession.

The Scots were especially interested in a Union after the Alien Act 1705 in England, which wrecked Scottish trade with England, and the Darien affair which wrecked the finances of many leading magnates and businessmen and therefore the Scottish economy.

They had no choice; if they didn't push for Union (and yes, it was mostly them pushing for Union, the English were reluctant bedfellows; it wasn't until the issue of succession really raised its head that they became interested, despite what your revisionist historians might tell you) they faced economic and political ruin.

While many ordinary Scots weren't particularly in favour of Union, the political body of Scotland was very much in favour, with only a few dissenting voices.

The money was raised by scots, which is why the failure to succeed brought the country into bankruptcy. England knew what it was doing, it did all that it could to destroy the enterprise. Of course England benefited from it's actions, it forced the scottish nobles to capitulate and sell out scotland to the english. The only losers were the scottisjh people.

You say the English, but it would be more accurate to say King William didn't want it to interfere with English interests; purely because he got a whole load more money from England. The Scots weren't economically strong enough to survive.

Also the very first name on your list is a spurious claim, which raises questions about the others.......

"The first steam device was invented by Hero of Alexandria, a Greek, before 300BC, but never utilized as anything other than a toy. While designs had been created by varous people in the meanwhile, the first practical steam engine was patented by James Watt, a Scottish inventor, in 1769. Steam engines are of various types but most are reciprocal piston or turbine devices."
I'd be interested to know where you got that quote from. I knew that the Greeks invented the first steam engine, and I also knew that they only used it as a toy. Hence why (as you may have noticed), I used the phrase 'First practical steam engine'.

"In 1662 Edward Somerset, second Marquess of Worcester, published a book containing several ideas he had been working on. One was a steam-powered fountain, which used vacuum instead of pressure. In his design two containers would alternately be filled with steam and then allowed to condense to produce a vacuum that would suck up more water from a well. A new charge of steam then pushed the water out as in earlier designs. By running the two containers back to back the fountain could be made somewhat continuous.

In 1698 Thomas Savery introduced a steam powered pump he called the Miner's Friend, essentially identical to Somerset's design and almost certainly a direct copy. Applied to pumping out mines, the water was no longer driven from the cylinder by a new steam charge, but simply allowed to flow out of a valve once the steam condensed and the cylinder was filled. The process of cooling and creating the vacuum was fairly slow, so Savery later added a small water inlet to quickly cool the steam."

http://www.answers.com/topic/newcomen-steam-engine

James Watt secured the first patent on a steam engine - anybody could tell you that the first patent does not mean that it was invented by the person who owns the patent. 1769 was over 100 years after Edward Somerset published his book.

Being a Scot, I can claim the flightless hippo to be the greatest Scottish achievement. Pokemon will look like a passing fad after they get merchandised. Verily.

We used to have a steel industry, car manufacturing, major shipbuilding areas. The predominately English Tory Government of the 80's destroyed all that already.

Funny that during this time, Scotland repeatedly voted for a Labour administration, at one time there were no Tory MP's in Scotland. Yet we seem to have a "disproportionate" influence on the Westminster parliament. Is that argument for real? I know youy didn't say this but others have.

Yeah, that maybe so, but given that it's in the past you are really just validating my arguement that you have no real industry to build an economy on. Granted there is a growing service industry, but without other areas to service (so to speak) it'll fall.

Scotland's biggest achievement is that it has remained part of the UK, unlike its treasonous cousin to the south-west.

Yeah, that maybe so, but given that it's in the past you are really just validating my arguement that you have no real industry to build an economy on. Granted there is a growing service industry, but without other areas to service (so to speak) it'll fall.
Three letters: o, i and l.
And another three: g, a and s.

Three letters: o, i and l.
And another three: g, a and s.
oilgas? :p

Not really much of that left, I'm afraid.

If we quit now, we'd have a good fourteen years of it left.

If we quit now, we'd have a good fourteen years of it left.
And then?

Three letters: o, i and l.
And another three: g, a and s.

Ah yeah, them. Because they will last forever? I don't think so. And you're going to support an entire economy on dwindling natural resources. Good thinking there :rolleyes:

Nice little piece on oil supplies (http://dieoff.org/page180.htm)

And then?
Then we use the money we've earned to attract other industry to Scotland.

Ah yeah, them. Because they will last forever? I don't think so. And you're going to support an entire economy on dwindling natural resources. Good thinking there :rolleyes:

Nice little piece on oil supplies (http://dieoff.org/page180.htm)

Yeah, we should have left in the eighties, then we would have had a great economy and England's would have crashed under Thatcher.

Then we use the money we've earned to attract other industry to Scotland.
A well thought out plan, there. :rolleyes:

Why would industry want to be on the periphery of Europe? The only way you'll get them up there is to pay lower wages and tax them less, which won't do any good for your economy.

Then we use the money we've earned to attract other industry to Scotland.

How would you achieve that exactly? Eastern europe has cheaper labour and better tax incentives than Scotland, it is also nearer natural resources. That is where one hell of a lot of industry is heading, and with good reason given the cost.

Scotland is too expensive and currently the only thing that will keep it's economy going is tourism.

Yeah, we should have left in the eighties, then we would have had a great economy and England's would have crashed under Thatcher.

Yeah, well that didn't happen so quit going back to the 'good ole days' and start thinking realisticly about the future.

How would you achieve that exactly? Eastern europe has cheaper labour and better tax incentives than Scotland, it is also nearer natural resources. That is where one hell of a lot of industry is heading, and with good reason given the cost.
Only problem is they can't sell it back home anymore. Since less people are employed and thus less people have enough money to buy the crap.

Your still not making much sense. Why am I proud of my fellow Scots achievements, I gave you the answer, you are nitpicking on the reasons for pride. That is not an issue under discussion, as it's more a philosophical concern, please feel free to start a topic around this if you wish.
Then, excuse my impoliteness for asking you "so", and permit me to be rude in a different way. I'm going to have to tell you "good for you".

Scotland is too expensive and currently the only thing that will keep it's economy going is tourism.

Well there are plenty of countries that survive on tourism as their main industry. Scotland could actually do very well on its own, provided it gave the right incentives to the tourism industry.

I am curious as to why the English here are so upset about a Scot saying that Scotland does not need England. I am English and if the Scots want to go it alone, let them.

i'd like to start by saying i'm scottish and prood of it but serouisly you to much spare time to get into such deep arguments, oh yeah winning the world cup in 1966 you never shut up about that. but i'm prood to be part of the uk as a whole thats including wales, scotland, nothern ireland and of course England it be a long time before any of what your arguing about will change every nation has its problems so just live with it.

I am curious as to why the English here are so upset about a Scot saying that Scotland does not need England. I am English and if the Scots want to go it alone, let them.

Because I don't want to see anything bad happen to Scotland. In all honesty I truly believe it would be better for us all to stick together, both for economic reasons as well as others. Although born in England, I consider myself British first and foremost, with my ancestory I think I would be a fool to think otherwise. I want us to do the best possible by all the countries of the UK.

Others think differently, fine, but I can't see any advantages of us splitting up.

How can Scotland split from ENgland and run itself if it can't even descide on a national anthem.

I for one suggest the a-team theme

And then?And then, if we were firmly rooted economically within a European fedaration of member nations. We could begin to regain the energy and productivity that Scotland is famous for.

Don't write any nonsense about Scotland being distant from the centre of Europe. Ireland is even further out and they have been an economic success. Indeed Ireland is an even smaller country than scotland yet they have one of the highest standards of living.

The real problem is England and the Westminster Government, who have been the cause of Scotland's ills. It's Europe where Scotland could be more successful

Don't write any nonsense about Scotland being distant from the centre of Europe. Ireland is even further out and they have been an economic success. Indeed Ireland is an even smaller country than scotland yet they have one of the highest standards of living.
Maybe so, but Ireland has Guinness.

The real problem is England and the Westminster Government, who have been the cause of Scotland's ills. It's Europe where Scotland could be more successful
Of course, because it's absolutely 100% nothing to do with Scotland is it?

And then, if we were firmly rooted economically within a European fedaration of member nations. We could begin to regain the energy and productivity that Scotland is famous for.

Don't write any nonsense about Scotland being distant from the centre of Europe. Ireland is even further out and they have been an economic success. Indeed Ireland is an even smaller country than scotland yet they have one of the highest standards of living.

The real problem is England and the Westminster Government, who have been the cause of Scotland's ills. It's Europe where Scotland could be more successful
So, like I say, rather than carry on in a union with a disproportianate voice and funding, you'd throw your whole nation into an unproven fantasy union so corrupt if it were a business it would have been shut down years ago and its leaders put on trial.

Sounds more like you are putting your dislike of the English before any rational sense.

So, like I say, rather than carry on in a union with a disproportianate voice and funding, you'd throw your whole nation into an unproven fantasy union so corrupt if it were a business it would have been shut down years ago and its leaders put on trial.

Sounds more like you are putting your dislike of the English before any rational sense.Perhaps you've not taken in what I've repeatedly said, though the situation you have just described is what has happened to Scotland with the union. The only fantasy is the one in your mind which thinks the status quo is good for scotland.

Please don't talk about corruption within Europe, we've got plenty of examples of our major political parties turning donations into loans into Honours titles. First it was just the tories, now it's the labour tories also.

PLease keep your xeonophobia to yourself, I have no problem with the English, just so long as they remember they are only part of a union of other countries within the UK.

Stalin, when the Scottish have independence and can take responsibility for their mistakes, then of course the economic problems Scotland has had is due entirely to the mismanagement of the Westminster Governments.

Perhaps you've not taken in what I've repeatedly said, though the situation you have just described is what has happened to Scotland with the union. The only fantasy is the one in your mind which thinks the status quo is good for scotland.
Scotland is in a far better state than it ever would be in a European federation. Not least because that EU federation will never happen, and Scotland will look mildly foolish trying to do it on its own. :p

Please don't talk about corruption within Europe, we've got plenty of examples of our major political parties turning donations into loans into Honours titles. First it was just the tories, now it's the labour tories also.
Britain is astonishly corruption free. Even the examples you just point to are evidence of how well the system works, in that they have been found out and investigated. I really would look into European corruption before you claim Britain is worse. Here's a link for you: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4438888.stm

PLease keep your xeonophobia to yourself, I have no problem with the English, just so long as they remember they are only part of a union of other countries within the UK.
Xenophobia is a hatred of foreigners. Aside from the fact I am far from a xenophobe, I do not consider you to be a foreigner, so that would be a very hard claim to sustain. In fact, everyone on this thread agreed with your original point, that Scotland should not be a forgotten part of the UK. It was only when you came out with nationalist nonsense that people pointed out the flaws in your arguments.

Scotland is in a far better state than it ever would be in a European federation. Not least because that EU federation will never happen, and Scotland will look mildly foolish trying to do it on its own. :p


Britain is astonishly corruption free. Even the examples you just point to are evidence of how well the system works, in that they have been found out and investigated. I really would look into European corruption before you claim Britain is worse. Here's a link for you: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4438888.stm


Xenophobia is a hatred of foreigners. Aside from the fact I am far from a xenophobe, I do not consider you to be a foreigner, so that would be a very hard claim to sustain. In fact, everyone on this thread agreed with your original point, that Scotland should not be a forgotten part of the UK. It was only when you came out with nationalist nonsense that people pointed out the flaws in your arguments.You claim that Scotland is in a far better position within Britain than if it was in Europe, I disagree. As I said earlier, Ireland is an example of how Scotland could have been if it were independent also.

Britain is rife with corruption, what about the Hewitt scandal a few weeks ago, what about Commisioner Blair of the metropolitan police and his history of corrupt activities. What about all the offshore accounts to avoid the payment of taxes by large companies and monied individuals.

Here's a link for you: "http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/item.shtml?x=51990"

Xenophobia is typically used to describe fear or dislike of foreigners or in general of people different from one's self. Only last year when I was in London, a "typical" English person told me to go back to where I came from.

The thread was moved on by various English people seeking to hijack the topic, I have responded with alternative views.

You claim that Scotland is in a far better position within Britain than if it was in Europe, I disagree. As I said earlier, Ireland is an example of how Scotland could have been if it were independent also.
You are attempting to compare two different countries. You have no basis for your claim that things would work other than the fact you want it to, and some vague hope of "oil and stuff will help us. Yeah."


Britain is rife with corruption, what about the Hewitt scandal a few weeks ago, what about Commisioner Blair of the metropolitan police and his history of corrupt activities. What about all the offshore accounts to avoid the payment of taxes by large companies and monied individuals.
The claim Britain is rife with corruption is absurd. Hewitt was actually a case of Italian corruption; Ian Blair hasn't done anything corrupt, just things to frown on; tax avoidance is not corruption; you might not agree with it, but it's not corrupt.

Xenophobia is typically used to describe fear or dislike of foreigners or in general of people different from one's self. Only last year when I was in London, a "typical" English person told me to go back to where I came from.
Were you telling them off at the time about how nasty they are to Scottish people?

One experience never makes something 'typical.'

The thread was moved on by various English people seeking to hijack the topic, I have responded with alternative views.
Actually, you were the first to mention independence.

Britain is rife with corruption, what about the Hewitt scandal a few weeks ago, what about Commisioner Blair of the metropolitan police and his history of corrupt activities. What about all the offshore accounts to avoid the payment of taxes by large companies and monied individuals.

And so would Scotland's parliament be if they became an independent state.

Xenophobia is typically used to describe fear or dislike of foreigners or in general of people different from one's self. Only last year when I was in London, a "typical" English person told me to go back to where I came from.

Y'know, I don't believe I've ever seen a "typical person". I'd be most grateful for a full description to enable future identification, thank you.


Indeed, Scotland has a lot to be proud of. As do England, Ireland, Wales, France, Spain, Germany, etc, etc.

Personally, most of those I've seen treating Britain as being synonymous with England are American, and the British country mentioned the least tends to be Wales.

Scotland's biggest achievement is that it has remained part of the UK, unlike its treasonous cousin to the south-west.

...Isle of Man...?

You are attempting to compare two different countries. You have no basis for your claim that things would work other than the fact you want it to, and some vague hope of "oil and stuff will help us. Yeah."


The claim Britain is rife with corruption is absurd. Hewitt was actually a case of Italian corruption; Ian Blair hasn't done anything corrupt, just things to frown on; tax avoidance is not corruption; you might not agree with it, but it's not corrupt.


Were you telling them off at the time about how nasty they are to Scottish people?

One experience never makes something 'typical.'


Actually, you were the first to mention independence.My memory of mentioning independence is different than yours. It was you who brought up the subject of the break-up of the union....if you don't believe me, check the first page of the topic....
"Philosopy
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 648 Quote:

Actually, this 'individual nationalism' is a relatively new thing - if you look at the crowd at the 1966 World Cup, you'll see that the huge majority are waving Union Jacks, not the Cross of St George.

I think the decline goes hand in hand with the decline of Britain as a power; when we ruled the waves, everyone was proud to be British; but now, there doesn't seem to be a 'British' identity anymore, and so people are identifying more with their home nation. I wonder how far it will go; I think the break up of the Union is a terrible idea."

The basis in looking at Ireland as a role model for how Scotland could have developed with independence is a lot more grounded than your spurious notion that "Scotland is in a far better state than it ever would be in a European federation". You have no basis to say this other than your personal view.

Hewitt is English as is her husband, they took money, she pretended she didn't know abaout it because her husband does all the important things like dealing with money, never mind that she is a senior political figure.

Commisioner Blair is a liar and corrupt, he even tried to cover up the unlawful killing of a Brazillian man by accusing him of being a suspected terrorist. Funny how, given that corruption does not exist, that the CCTV tapes were "lost". Check out this link for more info...."http://www.spy.org.uk/spyblog/2005/08/bbc_stockwell_tube_shooting_cc.html"

As to your last question, no, I was the victim of racist abuse from a "friendly" Londoner. Also, please note that the word "typical" in inverted commas was put in there to reflect sarcasm. After all, as a Scot, I do have a very developed sense of humour.