The home of intelligent horse racing discussion
The home of intelligent horse racing discussion

Scotland

Home Forums Lounge Scotland

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 36 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #4143
    insomniac
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1453

    Scotland has a great history of producing inventors, writers, soldiers (and every now and again a great footballer!).  Per head of population, the Scots could arguably be the most inventive people on Earth. It’s a great country and I’ve always found the natives friendly and amusing. So, why does the place seem to be going down the tubes these days?<br>The only thing that seems to come from north of the border nowadays are bl***y politicians!  – and 4th rate ones at that. <br>High rate of childhood obesity/ over 50’s soon to outnumber under 50’s /  3rd rate national soccer team.  <br>The standard response of most chippy Scots will be that whatever is wrong with Scotland it’s all the fault of the English.

    #97922
    insomniac
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1453

    Come on PS – Scotland’s not a s**t hole! It’s a beautiful country – sure, it has its dumps; so do all countries.<br>You lot may have given us lots of duff politicians and Lulu, but, on the plus side you’ve given us Mark Johnston.<br>Come to think of it – what have the Welsh given us?

    #97924
    stevedvg
    Member
    • Total Posts 1137

    So, why does the place seem to be going down the tubes these days?

    Good question.

    I think an important clue would come from answering the question "when did it start going down the tubes?"

    It is this ability to see our faults, realise our limitations and accept them with good grace

    You must be ****
    ing joking.

    The defining characteristic of the modern day scot is his unreasonably low self-esteem, the low standards he sets himself and his willingness to limit his own progress.

    And then he blames all this on the English.

    Pathetic, really.

    Steve

    #97926
    cormack15
    Keymaster
    • Total Posts 8798

    Surely you’re not suggesting George Galloway is 4th rate?

    #97927
    wit
    Participant
    • Total Posts 2155

    Be grateful for small mercies – at least the socialist movers in Westminster and Brussels aren’t trying to destroy Scotland as a nation.

    Wondered why Wales and Scotland got their own assemblies, but not England?

    Wondered why Prescott was so keen to push regional assemblies in England even though the folk living there opposed them 6 to 1?

    Wondered why Charles Clarke now wants to force the 43 police authorities south of the border into just 12?

    Simply take their proposals and overlay the EU map of Britain on them.

    That map recognises Scotland as a separate nation but for England sees only large regions.

    Not regions determined by reference to any sense of history or identity, just for their "bureaucratic tidiness".

    best regards

    wit <br>

    (Edited by wit at 1:06 pm on Jan. 27, 2006)

    #97930
    stevedvg
    Member
    • Total Posts 1137

    at least the socialist movers in Westminster and Brussels aren’t trying to destroy Scotland as a nation. <br>

    If they did, they’d be 299 years too late.

    Wondered why Wales and Scotland got their own assemblies,

    I don’t know about wales, but Scotland got it’s referendum because the Labour party knew it would be a vote winning policy.

    (and that was because there were enough fools in Scotland who somehow thought that it would be a good thing)

    Wondered why Prescott was so keen to push regional assemblies in England even though the folk living there opposed them 6 to 1?

    Personally, no. Assemblies are a load of poncing around and no substance.

    For example, if Scotland was to be given control of certain aspects of government, then why not just get the scottish MPs at Westminster in a room a couple of days a week to vote on it?

    Because there would have been no "show" about it.

    That map recognises Scotland as a separate nation but for England sees only large regions

    I think you’ll find that it recognises Scotland as a mixture of (a) one region and (b) a collection of regions along historic grounds, depending on the issue involved.

    Apart from sport, we’re definitely not seen as a country (anymore than Bavaria or Galicia).

    And nor do we deserve to be.

    Steve  <br>

    (Edited by stevedvg at 3:53 pm on Jan. 27, 2006)

    #97931
    cormack15
    Keymaster
    • Total Posts 8798

    Group B <br>FRANCE<br>ITALY<br>UKRAINE<br>Scotland<br>Lithuania<br>Georgia<br>Faroe Islands

    <br>The Scotland resurgence starts here (or then again, maybe not!)

    #97933
    wit
    Participant
    • Total Posts 2155

    hi steve

    obviously there’s the UK and GB and the Britsh Isles, but tell me that this map

    http://europa.eu.int/abc/maps/members/uk_en.htm

    doesn’t give a unity to Scotland which is absent from England.

    What is a nation ?   "A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality. A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country."?

    Is the UK a Nation or a Union (like the US) ?

    Is GB a Nation or a Union?

    Scotland, unlike England, has its own Parliament.  There are many things Scottish MPs can vote on for England that English MPs can’t vote on for Scotland.

    Scotland has separate source of law (Roman Dutch) and a separate set of legislation to England & Wales, a separate Court system and a separate legal profession.

    So, to a very large degree a separate legislature, judiciary, and executive.

    Nationality by sporting groupings perhaps should not be so easily dismissed as a measure of how many people feel – otherwise we’d long ago have given into FIFA and had a GB team, or a 3 nations rugby tournament.

    Scotland has it pretty sweet and is keen to keep it that way.

    No wonder your countryman Mr Brown is so concerned that everyone salute the union flag and pretend its a national flag, even while his colleagues continue to sell out England to the EU ;o)

    best regards

    wit<br>

    (Edited by wit at 5:24 pm on Jan. 27, 2006)

    #97934
    stevedvg
    Member
    • Total Posts 1137

    Hi Wit

    Looking at that map, Scotland just looks like another region. Just like East Midlands, but bigger.

    Look at the map of Germany, what’s the difference between Scotland being a region and Bayern being a region?

    So, yes, it gives scotland "unity", but that unity is of low value (just another region).

    We’ve about 40% of the land mass of the island, but only one of the 11 regions.

    Is the UK a Nation or a Union (like the US) ?

    I don’t see the difference. What’s Germany? What’s France? What’s Switzerland?

    Scotland, unlike England, has its own Parliament.

    Nope. It has a devolved assembly which, for some reason, has chosen to, and been allowed to, call itself a "parliament".

    However, it’s just an assembly, which is exactly what Scotland voted on a few years ago. We never voted on a parliament, and that’s a fact.

    And the sooner the jumped up councillors that make up the assembly are put in their place, the better.

    There are many things Scottish MPs can vote on for England that English MPs can’t vote on for Scotland.

    That’s clearly unfair and shouldn’t be the case.

    However, I suspect that this state of affairs was created for the benefit of the Labour Party (who expect to always have more Scottish MPs than the tories), rather than for the benefit of Scotland.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if the next Tory government address this issue, and they’d be right to do so.

    (though, again, their primary motivation would no doubt be weakening the labour party, rather than fairness)  

    Scotland has separate source of law (Roman Dutch) and a separate set of legislation to England & Wales, a separate Court system and a separate legal profession.  

    That dates back to 1707 when both England and Scotland chose to keep their own legal systems.

    So, everything you are saying about the independence of the Scottish legal system is also true of the English system (even though the English system also applies in Wales).

    The 1707 act was voluntary and, therefore, negotiated. So, everything that Scotland kept as separate (e.g. the church), the other side (in reality, England) also got to keep separate.

    The only clouding of the issue here is the role of Wales which, seems to me to have been to do whatever the English were doing. They don’t seem to have exerted much influence, to put it mildly.

    Nationality by sporting groupings perhaps should not be so easily dismissed as a measure of how many people feel – otherwise we’d long ago have given into FIFA and had a GB team, or a 3 nations rugby tournament.

    I wasn’t dismissing it in terms of how people feel. I’ve no doubt that mos people in England regard themselves as English first and British second. Similarly the Welsh and Scottish put their own "sub-nationality" before their "Britishness" .

    What I meant was that, in political terms, Scotland’s not a country.

    Indeed, given that, in most of ther world, the word most commonly used for the UK is the word that means "England", Scotland doesn’t ever really exist on the map other than as part of "England".

    Scotland has it pretty sweet and is keen to keep it that way.

    I’d be curious as to why you think this is the case.

    Yes, many of the political/legislative decisions about Scotland are made in Edinburgh. But most of the decisions for the UK are made in London.

    And, from 1979-1997, all the decisions for Scotland  were made in London by a party with was, for all intents and purposes, unelected in Scotland.

    The fact that some (fairly small) decisions are now being made by a bunch of arseholes at Holyrood rather than by arseholes in Westminster really isn’t something to envy us for.  <br> <br>If you don’t believe me, I’d suggest you find a TV channel that shows "highlights" from Holyrood. You’ll quickly see that it’s just a bunch of plonkers nipping each others heads over trivialities in the hope of scoring some party political points.

    So, I’d say that Scotland has it pretty much the same as most of England, though probably not as good as the sough-east which seems to get a pretty good deal.  

    No wonder your countryman Mr Brown is so concerned that everyone salute the union flag and pretend its a national flag, even while his colleagues continue to sell out England to the EU ;o)

    I have to say, I’ve no idea why he proposed such a non-starter of an idea. I’m not big fan of his, but that was surprisingly silly.

    Cheers

    Steve

    #97935
    insomniac
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1453

    Scots, understandably, get annoyed whenever a sporting achievement by one of their countrymen (or women or teams) is referred to as a "British" success.<br>Does anyone recall Tony Blair referring to the success of Liverpool in last year’s Champions league as a "great result for British football" ?  (English football – yes; perhaps even English-Spanish football. But BRITISH? – no way).

    #97938
    wit
    Participant
    • Total Posts 2155

    hi steve

    i think you’re making my point for me – Acts of Union happen between nations.  

    There’s no parallel in terms of  sense of unity – historical, cultural, economic, political, legal, social  – between Scotland and the East Midlands.

    There is between Scotland and England, but England is what the socialist movers both in Westminster and Brussels want to break up and destroy: they hate with a passion the fact that England even exists: its values are anathema to the socialist mindset of dictatorialism and subservience to functionaries of "the State".  

    You mention Bavaria.  That of course still has a different status within the Federal Democratic Republic, being a "Freistaat" rather than a "Land".  Historically, its been a distinct state with an autonomous diplomatic service , army, etc right up to Weimar.  Then it gave Hitler’s National Socialist movement its start and base, since when its remained more interested in dominating the federation than going for devolution.  

    There’s no comparison between Bavaria and the East Midlands either (for one thing, BMW’s not in the East Midlands ;o) ).    

    Back to Scotland – it has a Parliament, not an Assembly (like Wales and NI), and its very much more than just a difference in name.  Look at the Scotland Act – for one litmus test, Scotland can levy its own income tax:

    http://www.dca.gov.uk/constitution/devolution/ukdev.htm

    Scotland is most definitely a nation and a country – its not a separate state politically because it legislated not to be through the Act of Union.  

    If pushed for a very rough political parallel, I’d maybe start comparing Scotland/UK with Quebec/Canada (with England being Ontario).

    best regards

    wit<br>

    #97940
    stevedvg
    Member
    • Total Posts 1137

    Hi Wit

    I thought it would be best for me to look up the words "country" and "nation" as  my lack of clarity on these words might be a large part of why we’re seeing things so differently.

    Dictionary.com has a nation as being "A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government".

    So, with that definition, I’d say Scotland hasn’t been a nation since 1707.

    The same site has numerous definitions of "country " including "a region, territory, or large tract of land distinguishable by features of topography, biology, or culture", which I think would make Scotland a country.

    In other definitions, a country is pretty much the same as their definition of "nation", which would mean Scotland isn’t a country.

    Anyway…. (using these definitions)

    i think you’re making my point for me – Acts of Union happen between nations.  

    Yep. But do these nations continue to be nations after the union?

    IMO, no.

    There’s no parallel in terms of  sense of unity – historical, cultural, economic, political, legal, social  – between Scotland and the East Midlands.

    I was talking about the map. The point I was making is that the map doesn’t recognise Scotland as anything other than just another region.

    If one was to go around the 25 countries of the EU, you’d find numerous regions which were, at one time, countries.

    On the same site, Aragon is a region. It’s a former country (until, co-incidentally, 1707) with its own language which is still spoken by some of its inhabitants.

    But I wouldn’t say it could still be described as a country, just an administrative region.

    England is what the socialist movers both in Westminster and Brussels want to break up and destroy

    I really don’t understand what you mean by this or what the evidence is, so I should ask you.

    Who’s trying to break up England? How are they trying to do it? Where’s the evidence for this? What do they hope to get out of dstroying England? And which English values will be undermined by splitting England into different regions?

    Because I really don’t see any of this.

    I think it might suit the labour party to have certain areas of the GB to be devolved (the areas where Labour are traditionally strong), so that their party can keep control of those areas even after losing a general election.    

    However, like anything else in this area, it’s going to be the public that decides and, if no-one’s interested, these ideas will not pass a referendum.

    Back to Scotland – it has a Parliament, not an Assembly

    I stand corrected. Westminster granted us a parliament in 1998, not an Assembly. This comes as a surprise because I seem to remember Scotland voting for an assembly.

    However, a bit of googling shows that the questions asked used the word "parliament".

    So, as I said, I stand corrected.

    However, that doesn’t change my key point on this which is – having this "parliament" doesn’t contribute anything substantial to Scotland.

    I tend to refer to it as "Holyrood town council" as that seems to be pretty much the level they operate at.

    Yes, they can levy taxes, but so can councils.

    Again, I’d suggest you watch broadcasts of their meetings and come to your own conclusions. I’m confident that you’ll come to the conclusion that there’s nothing to envy Scotland for here.

    It’s an Assembly responsible for not very much and called a parliament. And the reason it exists is that its existence is to the benefit of new Labour.<br> <br>It’s got nothing to do with improving Scotland.<br> <br>Scotland is most definitely a nation and a country – its not a separate state politically because it legislated not to be through the Act of Union.  

    Going back to the dictionary.com definitions, I would say were not in any way a "nation", but possibly a country, if you use a very broad definition of that word.  

    I guess the argument could be made that Scotland is now (post 1997) a nation due to the fact that it falls under a single parliament.

    However, I don’t think that many people would describe Scotland as "a nation created in 1997".

    Having said that, Donald Dewar was nicknamed "father of a nation" for his role in the whole Holyrood fiasco. So, maybe it’s an 8yo nation?  

    Personally, I think "lying **********" was more a accurate name for him, but what do I know, I only met the guy once.

    Best wishes

    Steve  

    #97942
    Purwell
    Participant
    • Total Posts 657

    Maybe Scotland is not benefitting from the input of the immigrant population in the same way as England?

    #97946
    wit
    Participant
    • Total Posts 2155

    hi steve

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>Who’s trying to break up England? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    The socialists in Westminster and in Brussels.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>How are they trying to do it?  <br><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    By breaking England up into bureaucratic regions each with a direct relationship with Brussels, not least nurturing an increasing direct funding relationship via the European Regional Development Fund, European Social Fund, etc as channels for public spending.

    Wean folk off the idea that public funding comes from Westminster and you bypass the whole issue of national objections / referenda  –   "hey, it’s a natural process for our region to deal direct with Brussels.  What’s the point of this old-fashioned attachment to England?  Let’s just MOVE ON!."    

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>Where’s the evidence for this?<br><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    From Westminster:

    1.   The White Paper and the other Regional Assemblies material put out by the government since 2000:

    http://www.odpm.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1139476

    http://www.odpm.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1133514

    From Brussels:

    http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l60015.htm

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>What do they hope to get out of destroying England? <br><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    You’ll have to ask them, but socialism only works if its universal, so that folk can’t make comparisons and realise that things can be better under other systems.   Hence the closed nature of the USSR, China, North Korea, etc.

    The aim seems to be establishing subservience to/dependence on  Brusssels.   The institutions of  Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc all recognised the need to destroy existing loyalties and senses of identity, and  the EU is no different in its socialist ambitions.<br> <br>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>And which English values will be undermined by splitting England into different regions?<br><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    All the same ones being undermined by the creeping integration into Europe.  

    The European Constitution is still being proceeded with in Brussels – they just ignore referendum results they don’t like and press on regardless.  

    Same in Westminster.  Devolution vote for English regions shot down overwhelmingly (or, in the case of the North West and Yorkshire/Humberside, scrapped at the last-minute U-turn through fear of losing), yet Government Offices for those Regions go on regardless.<br>        <br>Splitting up England is just a part of achieving the Brussels dream for Europe.  

    Ein Geld, Ein Volk, Ein Reich with a lot of little Laender.   The Union of European Socialist Regions.  

    Laughable?  Folk will never go for it?  

    Let’s put it on a creeping timetable across several years – surprising what folk can then be got to sleepwalk into.

    Chip away – regional parliament here, regional police authority there, turn local regiments into regional ones, create an Eu criminal law, create an EU armed forces – build the overall from the smallest pieces possible.

    How convincing is this, for example, from the Campaign for the English Regions:

    http://www.cfer.org.uk/faqs.htm

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>Q. Why bother with this when it has hardly been a success in Scotland and Wales?

    A. Devolution has been successful. The Parliament and the National Assembly have established themselves well in their respective countries – and in particular their moves to stand up for Scottish students and for Welsh farmers have been popular. <br><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    they’ll have you down as a malcontent and troublemaker, steve ;)

    best regards

    wit

    #97947
    dave jay
    Member
    • Total Posts 3386

    Immigrants won’t come to Scotland unless they want to loaf about on the brew or work in mimimum wage job.

    There was an African family who got dumped in a scheme near where I lived and their 2 kids went to the school here. They were here for about six weeks before clearing out and going to England, the same as loads of other people who want a decent job.

    In Ayrshire where I live officially 65% of the people in work, work for the government and only 35% are employed in the private sector.

    The Scottish parliment is a joke !!<br>

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 36 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.