Scottish Nationalists win decisive victory in Assembly Elections.


Off-Topic Discussions

1 to 50 of 81 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Well I know this probably means nothing to 99% of people here but I for one have been in a stated of elated shock since yesterday afternoon.

BBC Report

What this means for the future of the UK as a single political entity noone can yet tell..we have 5 years to find out.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Card Game, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I'm not sure that this very good vote for the SNP means that independence will follow - I suspect that it's mostly the result of a combination of competent government over the last four years, a very bad Labour campaign and a collapse from us and the Tory rump due to the national situation.

The Exchange

Time to Form a Commonwealth of States like Australia...any one who disagrees gets deported to France or that Dry province of France (Spain).


If you thought we were competent when we didn't have the majority to get our policies through....just watch this space.

The Exchange

DM Wellard wrote:
If you thought we were competent when we didn't have the majority to get our policies through....just watch this space.

"Yu kan take oor Lifes but ya kanna take oor MGs!"


yellowdingo wrote:
DM Wellard wrote:
If you thought we were competent when we didn't have the majority to get our policies through....just watch this space.
"Yu kan take oor Lifes but ya kanna take oor MGs!"

Just...go..Away


Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber

Or quote the pictsies instead. Their battle cries are at least more appropriate.


Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber

I should also say that as a long-time scotophile (thank you for that Belle & Sebastian) I would not mind it the least if at some point in the future I can take a plane across the North Sea to visit an independent Scotland to sate my cravings for a good walk uphill (looking at you, Edinburgh).

Sovereign Court

Kajehase wrote:
I should also say that as a long-time scotophile (thank you for that Belle & Sebastian) I would not mind it the least if at some point in the future I can take a plane across the North Sea to visit an independent Scotland to sate my cravings for a good walk uphill (looking at you, Edinburgh).

You're somehow blocked from visiting Scotland because it is part of the United Kingdom?

I think that we are stronger together; in survey after survey the vast majority of people of Scotland, Wales and England agree.

I recently made my first visit to Scotland, it was great but it would be disingenuous for me to suggest that it felt like a different country. We are not only geographically close but culturally interconnected in such a rich and complex fabric that political separation would feel entirely artificial.

Ivanhoe was written by a Scot, Macbeth by an Englishman...


Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber
GeraintElberion wrote:
Kajehase wrote:
I should also say that as a long-time scotophile (thank you for that Belle & Sebastian) I would not mind it the least if at some point in the future I can take a plane across the North Sea to visit an independent Scotland to sate my cravings for a good walk uphill (looking at you, Edinburgh).

You're somehow blocked from visiting Scotland because it is part of the United Kingdom?

I think that we are stronger together; in survey after survey the vast majority of people of Scotland, Wales and England agree.

I recently made my first visit to Scotland, it was great but it would be disingenuous for me to suggest that it felt like a different country. We are not only geographically close but culturally interconnected in such a rich and complex fabric that political separation would feel entirely artificial.

Ivanhoe was written by a Scot, Macbeth by an Englishman...

I said "I would not mind" if Scotland were independent. Not "I do hope you get free of those horrid Sassenach." ;) As for what would work out best, that is something for the Scots to decide, and as a Swede I'll keep out of the discussion.

The Exchange

DM Wellard wrote:

Well I know this probably means nothing to 99% of people here but I for one have been in a stated of elated shock since yesterday afternoon.

BBC Report

What this means for the future of the UK as a single political entity noone can yet tell..we have 5 years to find out.

Given our previous recent conversation on the subject, I found this victory for the SNP to be very interesting. I haven't really seen any analysis on why it happened. What is your view?


There were several factors involved in this..but I don't think even Salmond was thinking he would have a working majority of 10.

1) The SNP backroom staff are top quality headed by Peter Murrell who many commentators regard as the parties secret weapon.The campaign was first class and never put a foot wrong in comparison to Labours rather lack lustre and negative stance.

2)Alex Salmond is widely recognised as a political Leader of extraordinary ability his polling figures compared to Labours Ian Gray verged on the cruel. He is ably backed up by a first rate team of Ministers who have delivered sensible and prudent government for the last 4 years.

3)The Labour Party's campaign focused to much on the Westminster Tories, concentrated on the constituency vote to the detriment of the Additional Member List and relied on the traditional herd of sheep to vote for them no matter what.It's been said you could get a collie elected in some Labour seats in the past if it wore a red rosette.The failure to recognise the far different Scottish dimension can be partly laid a the feet of Mr Millibean and the Central Party leadership in London.

4)The Lib-Dems failed to establish enough distance between themselves and their counterparts in the Coalition Government.Frankly I don't think there was much Tavish Scott could have done to remedy this as the Tories have successfully used his party as a human shield for their cuts in public spending.The results in the English councils and the squashing of the AV proposals were also a result of David Camerons very well thought out strategy of having Nick Clegg make every announcement of bad news.Indeed you have to ask what the LD's are now getting out of the coalition.


Kajehase wrote:
I should also say that as a long-time scotophile (thank you for that Belle & Sebastian)

Thank you, Scotland, for B&S, the Jesus and Mary Chain, the Vaselines, Primal Scream, Aztec Camera, Edwyn Collins and Josef K!

Thank you, also, for Adam Smith, who, despite his reputation as the propagandist of capitalism, was the first one to point out that the bourgeoisie's profits are stolen from the working class!

The Exchange

DM Wellard wrote:

There were several factors involved in this..but I don't think even Salmond was thinking he would have a working majority of 10.

1) The SNP backroom staff are top quality headed by Peter Murrell who many commentators regard as the parties secret weapon.The campaign was first class and never put a foot wrong in comparison to Labours rather lack lustre and negative stance.

2)Alex Salmond is widely recognised as a political Leader of extraordinary ability his polling figures compared to Labours Ian Gray verged on the cruel. He is ably backed up by a first rate team of Ministers who have delivered sensible and prudent government for the last 4 years.

3)The Labour Party's campaign focused to much on the Westminster Tories, concentrated on the constituency vote to the detriment of the Additional Member List and relied on the traditional herd of sheep to vote for them no matter what.It's been said you could get a collie elected in some Labour seats in the past if it wore a red rosette.The failure to recognise the far different Scottish dimension can be partly laid a the feet of Mr Millibean and the Central Party leadership in London.

4)The Lib-Dems failed to establish enough distance between themselves and their counterparts in the Coalition Government.Frankly I don't think there was much Tavish Scott could have done to remedy this as the Tories have successfully used his party as a human shield for their cuts in public spending.The results in the English councils and the squashing of the AV proposals were also a result of David Camerons very well thought out strategy of having Nick Clegg make every announcement of bad news.Indeed you have to ask what the LD's are now getting out of the coalition.

Interesting....

1) Don't know much (anything, actually) about that set-up, so can't comment.

2) I must confess to having a soft spot for Alec Salmond. He's one of the few politicians who actually will answer the question he is given, rather than changing the subject and answering the question he wanted to be asked. That said, most of what he says I think is rubbish, but I salute his approach. And there's no denying he's a smart guy.

3) I heard that. I imagine that, with virtually no Tory presence in Scotland for coming on a for a generation and with a devolved government, the fear factor of Tories in London is probably pretty low. Maybe devolution wasn't such a hot idea for Labour, but then Blair himself wasn't keen. But the policy was a hold-over from John Smith. If Labour's stranglehold in Scotland can be broken, that can only be a good thing given the entrenched positions in councils and so on has led to some decidedly unsavoury shennanigans up there, from what I understand. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next General Election.

4) I found it interesting the way Milliband was positioning things during the AV campaign, pretty much saying Clegg was a hindrance to AV (which might be true of course, even if it also makes good politics) as this could lead to splits and defections of the more left-wing members of the Liberals towards Labour (if we remember, of course, that the current party was a fusion of "traditional" Liberals with Labour dissenters from the SDP). To some extent, the pro-AV people clearly failed to sell their position - the trouncing was fairly comprehensive - and the people of Britain have now spoken. The only reason the Liberals want it is narrowly self-interested, so why change the system to please a single party? But I agree that, from a stragetic sense, I can't see now what the Liberals are getting. I guess the lure of the ministerial car is still strong, but longer term this may lead them to split. That said, the Liberals were always the repository of the protest vote. They would promise anything, and their cuddly image belies their rather savage and underhand campaigning tactics (i.e. they are just like any other party). No matter who they joined with, under the current economic circumstances, they would be disappointing those who voted not-Labour or not-Tory and probably taking a pasting. Sadly, with power comes responsibility (and accountability). People expect the Tories to cut and make hard-headed decisions (or be neo-Thatcherite bastards - depending on your view) - the Liberals cultivated a different brand, even if the likes of Clegg are probably closer anyway to the Tories than Labour (unlike, say, Vince Cable).


Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:


Thank you, Scotland, for B&S, the Jesus and Mary Chain, the Vaselines, Primal Scream, Aztec Camera, Edwyn Collins and Josef K!

Thank you, also, for Adam Smith, who, despite his reputation as the propagandist of capitalism, was the first one to point out that the bourgeoisie's profits are stolen from the working class!

You forgot Simple Minds, Texas, Annie Lennox and Big Country. :)

Not to mention Alexander Graham Bell and John Logie Baird without whom we would not have the present Mass Communication Industry...

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:


It will be interesting to see what happens in the next General Election.

More immediately our Local council elections were delayed by a year this time round so next May will be a interesting first year report card

As for the Lib Dems nationwide..the grass roots is now in revolt..the upper echelons are split and poor Nick, who looks more and more harrassed and tired as the days go by, is taking fire from all sides. I really can't see him lasting much longer..


Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber

He also forgot Orange Juice (let's just say thank you Scotland for Postcard Records and be done with it), Bob Paisley, Kenny Dalglish, and that third guy whose name I always forget.

Graeme Souness we could have done without, though.


FREE SCOTLAND!!!

Of course, it means that England will declare war against Scotland, so the Scottish had better start preparing themselves for a long, bloody war against Great Britain.

FREEDOM!!!


Bob Paisley wasn't Scottish he was born in Hetton-le-Hole, County Durham.

the third guy was Bill Shankley who was.

You'd have to talk to my wife about Liverpool she's the fan..I couldn't care less about fitba' unless it's the national side.


Leafar the Lost wrote:

FREE SCOTLAND!!!

Of course, it means that England will declare war against Scotland, so the Scottish had better start preparing themselves for a long, bloody war against Great Britain.

FREEDOM!!!

I refer you to my previous comment re the Dingo


DM Wellard wrote:
Leafar the Lost wrote:

FREE SCOTLAND!!!

Of course, it means that England will declare war against Scotland, so the Scottish had better start preparing themselves for a long, bloody war against Great Britain.

FREEDOM!!!

I refer you to my previous comment re the Dingo

England can take your lives, Wellard, but they cannot take your souls! FREE SCOTLAND!!!


Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber

Ah yes, I always mix who was who of those two up (me and names, bloody awful relationship).

I would also add Dundee United for having the good taste to lose the 1987 UEFA cup final against IFK Göteborg. They will always hold a place in blue-white hearts.

The third guy was not a footballer, though - Robert Louis Stevenson.


DM Wellard wrote:

You forgot Simple Minds, Texas, Annie Lennox and Big Country. :)

I did NOT forget those groups. I did, however, forget The Skids.

Dark Archive

As a descendant of one of the branches of Clan Stewart, I fully support a Free Scotland. I only hope that it will occur so I can someday take my children to visit the land of our ancestors that is free and independent.


I have this to say to any dissolution of the union: UGH. Also, it's stupid and you'll be sorry.

Sovereign Court

David Fryer wrote:
As a descendant of one of the branches of Clan Stewart, I fully support a Free Scotland. I only hope that it will occur so I can someday take my children to visit the land of our ancestors that is free and independent.

This is hilariously empty-headed.

Is Scotland a nation opressed under a vicious yoke of tyranny. Or was Braveheart actually a patronising, homophobic, empty-headed film made by a crazed anti-semite?

As someone who actually lives in the UK, has Scottish friends, has been to Scotland and would actually be affected by such a decisions, I have to disagree.

Fair play to that awesome list of bands up above though. Without Scotland, Radio 6 would be nothing.

Dark Archive

GeraintElberion wrote:
David Fryer wrote:
As a descendant of one of the branches of Clan Stewart, I fully support a Free Scotland. I only hope that it will occur so I can someday take my children to visit the land of our ancestors that is free and independent.

This is hilariously empty-headed.

Is Scotland a nation opressed under a vicious yoke of tyranny?

To give the classic law school answer, maybe. Ultimately it depends on who you ask. I personally do not think anything of the kind, but I do know people from Scotland who do feel that way. Certainly the new first minister believes that London's influence over Scotland needs to be decreased. One does not have to be living under tyranny or oppression to want the right to self determination. To my knowledge, the people of Quebec are not horribly oppressed, but that does not stop groups in Quebec from wanting independence for their province. I am also not aware of any horrific oppression of the Basque people in Spain, although I admit to a degree of ignorance on Spanish politics, but there are groups advocating for Basque independence, often violently. There are lots of factors that go in to movements like this, but the common thread that seems to run through most independence movements is cultural preservation. The group moving to gain their freedom have a different culture than the political majority and wish the ability to organize a state based on their national culture.

Now since you brought it up, I would invite you to explain how Scottish independence would harm you. I study both history and political science so I am curious about this. Since I am "empty-headed" I would love for you to explain it to me.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Well Being Scottish and very much anti-SNP I for one welcome this result since when the party does inevitably mess things up They wont be able to hide behind excuses like not having a majority and such.


Is the SNP the "Highlanders?"

(I know...just go away)....;)

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
GeraintElberion wrote:

Is Scotland a nation opressed under a vicious yoke of tyranny. Or was Braveheart actually a patronising, homophobic, empty-headed film made by a crazed anti-semite?

And historically inaccurate in several places (Battle of Stirling bridge not being on a bridge in the film for example.)

Liberty's Edge

Yeah; I looked at all the battles in Encyclopedia Brittanica back in the day; none of them really went down like a football kickoff with swords like in the movie....

The Exchange

David Fryer wrote:
GeraintElberion wrote:
David Fryer wrote:
As a descendant of one of the branches of Clan Stewart, I fully support a Free Scotland. I only hope that it will occur so I can someday take my children to visit the land of our ancestors that is free and independent.

This is hilariously empty-headed.

Is Scotland a nation opressed under a vicious yoke of tyranny?

To give the classic law school answer, maybe. Ultimately it depends on who you ask. I personally do not think anything of the kind, but I do know people from Scotland who do feel that way.

Well, they are idiots, then. They have the same rights and freedoms as everyone else in the UK. What they may feel is that government from London is not representative of them, but that is not the same as saying they are unfree.

David Fryer wrote:
Certainly the new first minister believes that London's influence over Scotland needs to be decreased.

Well, of course he bloody does - he's the leader of the Scottish Nationalist Party! What else is he going to say?

David Fryer wrote:
One does not have to be living under tyranny or oppression to want the right to self determination. To my knowledge, the people of Quebec are not horribly oppressed, but that does not stop groups in Quebec from wanting independence for their province. I am also not aware of any horrific oppression of the Basque people in Spain, although I admit to a degree of ignorance on Spanish politics, but there are groups advocating for Basque independence, often violently. There are lots of factors that go in to movements like this, but the common thread that seems to run through most independence movements is cultural preservation. The group moving to gain their freedom have a different culture than the political majority and wish the ability to organize a state based on their national culture.

There is a difference between being oppressed and desiring independence. I think you are making that distinction but it is an important one. I personally do not consider that Scottish independence would be good for the Scots, nevermin anyone else, but if they want it they can have it. Which kind-of suggests they are maybe freer that maybe was initiatilly suggested. Scotland was, of course, a sovereign nation up until the Act of Union (early 18th Century, I think) and still has traditions distinct from England (e.g. separate legal system). Wales was subsumed into England & Wales in the medieval period and there never was a "Wales" previously, more several rival kingdoms principalities. There is a "nationalist" movement there but they don't want actual independence. And Ireland is a whole different story, of course - they were oppressed.

David Fryer wrote:
Now since you brought it up, I would invite you to explain how Scottish independence would harm you. I study both history and political science so I am curious about this. Since I am "empty-headed" I would love for you to explain it to me.

Well, I don't think it would be all that bad for England and Wales. Inconvient, maybe. The biggest loss would be North Sea old but that is mostly tapped out. It is a controversial subject, and the SNP would suggest otherwise, but as far as I am aware Scotland receives a relatively hefty chunk of UK public expediture, the highest per head in the UK (I think - but certainly higher than England per head). Also, from a political standpoint, and as a Conservative voter, we would wave bye-bye to a load of lefty Scotish MPs. Whether Scotland, which hankers for more left-wing (i.e. expensive) policies (on average) than the rest of the UK, can pay for it by itself remains to be seen. The SNP say it can, others are less convinced.

Dark Archive

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
David Fryer wrote:
GeraintElberion wrote:
David Fryer wrote:
As a descendant of one of the branches of Clan Stewart, I fully support a Free Scotland. I only hope that it will occur so I can someday take my children to visit the land of our ancestors that is free and independent.

This is hilariously empty-headed.

Is Scotland a nation opressed under a vicious yoke of tyranny?

To give the classic law school answer, maybe. Ultimately it depends on who you ask. I personally do not think anything of the kind, but I do know people from Scotland who do feel that way.
Well, they are idiots, then. They have the same rights and freedoms as everyone else in the UK. What they may feel is that government from London is not representative of them, but that is not the same as saying they are unfree.

I will give you the three arguments I have heard. Granted I don't believe that they evidence any oppression, but they are the arguments I have heard used.

1) It took until 1998 to give Scotland it's own Parliament and even that is limited in it's effective power.

2) The Stone of Destiny, an important Scottish cultural relic, had to be stolen from Westminster Abby in order for it to be returned to Scotland.

3) It has only been within the last 30-40 years that Scotland was actually referred to as Scotland instead of North Britain by the English members of Great Britain.

I cannot speak from any knowledge about the last charge, and the first does not seem that strange to someone from the states. The second one is troubling, but when you consider that it took an act of Congress to start restoring cultural relics to Native Americans in the United States, I am not going to throw stones when I have my own glass house to live in.

Dark Archive

Kevin Mack wrote:
GeraintElberion wrote:

Is Scotland a nation opressed under a vicious yoke of tyranny. Or was Braveheart actually a patronising, homophobic, empty-headed film made by a crazed anti-semite?

And historically inaccurate in several places (Battle of Stirling bridge not being on a bridge in the film for example.)

LOL I actually wrote a paper on this and the other students who's job it was to review it actually questioned why it mattered if movies got history right or not. Considering I spent like half the paper discussing why it was important I can only figure that she saw it was about actual stuff and decided that it was not worth her time to read. I feel fairly sure of my assessment because her paper was on whether Armani or Gucci was a better designer. To her that was a pressing topic of public interest.


How long would a war between England and Scotland last, and how would it actually be fought? I am not familar with the military of Scotland.


it goes a bit further than England-VS-Scotland, and is more "Regional Britain" VS the south-east.

once you get more than 100 miles from london, you get an increasing feeling that the massive centralisation of power in the south-east makes the government less and less representative of your regional idenity

Scotland, however, has a strong enough identity to rally arround (And Wales, to a lesser extent) to turn it into a political cause, whereas in England, the regions just grumble along with nothing really to focus it on.


David Fryer wrote:


1) It took until 1998 to give Scotland it's own Parliament and even that is limited in it's effective power.

2) The Stone of Destiny, an important Scottish cultural relic, had to be stolen from Westminster Abby in order for it to be returned to Scotland.

3) It has only been within the last 30-40 years that Scotland was actually referred to as Scotland instead of North Britain by the English members of Great Britain.

I'll deal with your points in order.

1)Yes our Assembly isn't what it should be..and I for one favour more powers for it even without full Indepedence.However I do think it has made our people more aware of the differences north and south of the border..as evinced by the differing voting patterns in UK National and Scottish Assembly elections.It remains to be seen if this last election was a sea change.

2)Nonsense.The Stone was stolen in 1950..I actually knew the people who did it when I was very much younger than I am today. The stone was gifted back to the Scottish People by John Major in 1996 as an empty gesture ,a sop to a rising tide of popular agitation for the reforms that led to the Assembly being created, it still has to go to Westminster for Coronations however. The theft and the return were not connected in any way.

Indeed there is some doubt as to whether it is indeed the real stone or if it is a fake pawned off on Edward I by the Abbot of Scone.

3) Wikipedia article on the use of the term North Britain
As you can see it hasn't been seriously used for about a century


Also, as an asside, the North of England tends to vote more in line with Scotland than with the South of England - and that has tended to limit the south-east centric policies of Westminster

if Scotland hived off, you would likley be left with the North feeling less and less represented

The Exchange

David Fryer wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
David Fryer wrote:
GeraintElberion wrote:
David Fryer wrote:
As a descendant of one of the branches of Clan Stewart, I fully support a Free Scotland. I only hope that it will occur so I can someday take my children to visit the land of our ancestors that is free and independent.

This is hilariously empty-headed.

Is Scotland a nation opressed under a vicious yoke of tyranny?

To give the classic law school answer, maybe. Ultimately it depends on who you ask. I personally do not think anything of the kind, but I do know people from Scotland who do feel that way.
Well, they are idiots, then. They have the same rights and freedoms as everyone else in the UK. What they may feel is that government from London is not representative of them, but that is not the same as saying they are unfree.

I will give you the three arguments I have heard. Granted I don't believe that they evidence any oppression, but they are the arguments I have heard used.

1) It took until 1998 to give Scotland it's own Parliament and even that is limited in it's effective power.

2) See DM Wellard's reply.

3) It has only been within the last 30-40 years that Scotland was actually referred to as Scotland instead of North Britain by the English members of Great Britain.

I cannot speak from any knowledge about the last charge, and the first does not seem that strange to someone from the states. The second one is troubling, but when you consider that it took an act of Congress to start restoring cultural relics to Native Americans in the United States, I am not going to throw stones when I have my own glass house to live in.

1) The Scots were given a referendum in the late 1970s. They turned down independence/devolution then. The 1998 Scottish Parliament was voted through on a low turnout. They aren't gagging for it.

2) See DM Wellard's reply.

3) That's just untrue.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Also the election itself only had a turnout of 50% So hardly a ringing indorsment of the SNP (More a case of people either not caring or thinking all politicans are bad as each other.)

The Exchange

Loztastic wrote:

it goes a bit further than England-VS-Scotland, and is more "Regional Britain" VS the south-east.

once you get more than 100 miles from london, you get an increasing feeling that the massive centralisation of power in the south-east makes the government less and less representative of your regional idenity

Scotland, however, has a strong enough identity to rally arround (And Wales, to a lesser extent) to turn it into a political cause, whereas in England, the regions just grumble along with nothing really to focus it on.

It's more complicated than that. The South-East by far generates the most GDP in the UK, is the most populous part of the UK (about half the population of the UK lives in London or the Home Counties, and the population of London alone is probably more than (comparable to, anyway) Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland added together), and so on. London by itself would be a country on not-negligible GDP. So a lot of money is actually transferred out of the South-East to the rest of the country (a fact glossed over by a lot of "regionalists"). If the South-East decided the rest of the country could f$!~ off, it would probably have fantastic public services, lower taxes, etc. I'm not suggesting that, but certainly those of us paying taxes to be transferred to Scotland and elsewhere get a bit pissed off with all this "South-Eastern oppression" - try surviving without the cash transfers, then.


If you want the whole truth..most of the oppression Scotland has suffered since the Union of Parliaments in 1704(and indeed the union of the Crowns in 1603) has been at the hands of other Scots..

The persecution of the Highlanders..carried out by other Scotsmen

The Highland Clearances..carried out by other Scotsmen.

But at least we never took the road the Irish went down..Scottish Nationalism has managed for the most part to keep the lunatic fringe under control...and yes we have had a couple of minor terrorist organisations..who were totally infiltrated by Special Branch from their inception.


Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber

Terry Pratchett did a good joke about that, listing various nationalities mortal enmities - English and French, Russians and Poles, Scots and Scots.

Scarab Sages

GeraintElberion wrote:

Is Scotland a nation opressed under a vicious yoke of tyranny. Or was Braveheart actually a patronising, homophobic, empty-headed film made by a crazed anti-semite?

Kevin Mack wrote:
And historically inaccurate in several places (Battle of Stirling bridge not being on a bridge in the film for example.)

If you want historical accuracy, you'll have to try 'Prince of Thieves', where Kevin Costner lands at the south coast, walks along Hadrian's Wall, and is in Nottingham in time for tea...


Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber

And that's before the Picts show up.


Well funnily enough the half ( or totally) naked, unarmoured, tattooed warriors were still part of Scottish Armies at that period..but they were not Picts certainly.

The men of Galloway descended from the tribes of the Novantae and Selgovae were still fighting in the way of their forefathers until the early 1200's. They were sometimes erroneously referred to in English Chronicles as 'Galloway Picts'

one chronicler describes them as

" men agile, unclothed, remarkable for much baldness; arming their left side with knives formidable to any armed men, having a hand most skillful at throwing spears and directing them from a distance; raising their long lance as a standard when they advance into battle"


When I was younger and a member of socialist organization, I was watching Breaking the Waves with a Scottish comrade (from Scotland, not Scottish-American) and I made the mistake of referring to Scotland as "northern Britain"!

He reamed me out for fifteen minutes and I thought we were going to have to fight before he smiled and said "Gotcha!"

But then his smile disappeared and he said "Now that you know, don't EVER do that again!"


Too try and get this thread slightly back on track a couple of amusing results of this victory

Alex Salmond does not actually recognise all off his new MSPs on sight

The group is now so big that there is no room in the Parliament building large enough for them to meet in..the whole setup was designed to prevent anyone from ever gaining a majority like this.


As an Australian (minimalist)republican (that is a person who wants a republic not a supporter of the US republican party)I am interested.

Are the SNP pro European Union?
Are they left or right?
Are they a hodge podge of people who want an independent Scotland and are willing to set aside a political differences to achieve that goal?
Are they like the BNP and just hate everybody?
Would the SNP like to see a constitutional monarchy or a republic?

Sovereign Court

David Fryer wrote:
GeraintElberion wrote:
David Fryer wrote:
As a descendant of one of the branches of Clan Stewart, I fully support a Free Scotland. I only hope that it will occur so I can someday take my children to visit the land of our ancestors that is free and independent.

This is hilariously empty-headed.

Is Scotland a nation opressed under a vicious yoke of tyranny?

To give the classic law school answer, maybe. Ultimately it depends on who you ask. I personally do not think anything of the kind, but I do know people from Scotland who do feel that way. Certainly the new first minister believes that London's influence over Scotland needs to be decreased. One does not have to be living under tyranny or oppression to want the right to self determination. To my knowledge, the people of Quebec are not horribly oppressed, but that does not stop groups in Quebec from wanting independence for their province. I am also not aware of any horrific oppression of the Basque people in Spain, although I admit to a degree of ignorance on Spanish politics, but there are groups advocating for Basque independence, often violently. There are lots of factors that go in to movements like this, but the common thread that seems to run through most independence movements is cultural preservation. The group moving to gain their freedom have a different culture than the political majority and wish the ability to organize a state based on their national culture.

Now since you brought it up, I would invite you to explain how Scottish independence would harm you. I study both history and political science so I am curious about this. Since I am "empty-headed" I would love for you to explain it to me.

I do dislike being misquoted.

I never said that any rift in the United Kingdom would harm me, depending upon your perspective it might even advantage me (I currently live in that more prosperous South-Eastern bit).

I anticipate that Scottish independence would create a great political upheaval in what remained of the UK. We currently have a system in which the left and right pass governance back and forth despite a weight of voting (and political opinion in survey after survey) that is on the left because the left is split and the right united. Remiving the Scottish leftist vote would either give us an even greater distortion towards right-wing poitics or would destroy some of the left-wing parties, or have some other consequence I cannot well envisage.

This is over-simplified almost to the point of caricature but I can't bring myself to write an essay which I am not fully qualified to write. Needless to say this would have a huge effect upon the country.

Many forms of cultural exchange would also be influenced and some major institutions (galleries, museums, BBC, NHS) would have major reorganisation to deal with.

Many individuals would be forced to make uncomfortable choices with regards to nationality and forced to assert a personal identity which they are happy to leave vague.

And I still have not considered the effect upon the British psyche. We would not be the same nation, our civil stew would not be so rich as it once was.

As I said, I would be affected.

Sovereign Court

The 8th Dwarf wrote:

As an Australian (minimalist)republican (that is a person who wants a republic not a supporter of the US republican party)I am interested.

Are the SNP pro European Union?
Are they left or right?
Are they a hodge podge of people who want an independent Scotland and are willing to set aside a political differences to achieve that goal?
Are they like the BNP and just hate everybody?
Would the SNP like to see a constitutional monarchy or a republic?

Are the SNP pro European Union?

Yes
Are they left or right?
left
Are they a hodge podge of people who want an independent Scotland and are willing to set aside a political differences to achieve that goal?
They are a consistent, long-standing political party
Are they like the BNP and just hate everybody?
Nope, not a racist/bigoted party in any sense (I'm sure they have their loonies, but the fringe appears to be very small. I've actually met more foaming-at-the-mouth members of Plaid Cymru than I have SNP supporters)
Would the SNP like to see a constitutional monarchy or a republic?
They'd keep the Queen.

I hope those better-informed can correct/clarify any errors.

1 to 50 of 81 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Scottish Nationalists win decisive victory in Assembly Elections. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.