Scotish independence

[Malcolm John]

That very large Scottish bank is owned 81% by the British government now, as otherwise it would've gone belly up in 2008 with massive losses and rotten assets.

One thing about the Scottish debate that is really never discussed, is we poor English who are not masters in our own house and who have suffered under the burden of celtic party leaders - mainly scots, but some Irish and a few Welsh too. Over the past many decades, British political party leaders of the three main partiers are celtic in origin - to a greater or lesser degree. Check it out. Britain is run by celts in other words, and has been for decades past.

As Michael Caine used to say, "not many people know that"... ::

Come on be serious this is absolutely ridiculous nonsense you are talking here I'm afraid. You are run by celts for the last 30 years? Utter tripe, we have been run by England for 300 years and continue to be so, you have had precisely zero 'celts' as leaders in the last 30 years, you are talking ethnicity by using that term, Blair, not a celtic name, was vaguely 'Scottish', Brown, not a celtic name either, headed a government composed almost entirely of English people as all governments of the UK always have been, and governed according to the needs and wants of the south-east of England nowhere else, that is utterly, completely ridiculous to say that and mildly offensive.

Do we decide when you go to war? Who with, for how long, for what reasons and in what way it is prosecuted? No, you do that for us, do we set your budget for all public spending throughout the whole of England? No, you do that for us, do we represent you in foreign affairs and diplomacy? No, you do that for us, governed by celts honestly I don't think I've ever read anything as stupid in all my life. Poor oppressed you eh, just collecting all the taxes for the whole UK, deciding how they are spent and where, deciding what is in the 'national interest' meaning we all have to pay for it (strangely enough genereally infrastructure projects in the south-east of England), deciding which powers are inconsequential enough to gift the Scottish parliament like crumbs from your table, governed by celts I honestly can't believe anyone could write something as ludicrous as that and assume it was simply a bad joke.

[Malcolm John]

Here you go watch this, this is exactly the reality of being Scottish and living in the UK, try and imagine this, you would never ever dream of standing for it for even a fraction of a second, yet have the hceek to say you are governed by celts, that is genuinely offensive, watch this and learn something

[Malcolm John]

I'm assuming also that you can point out to me the last time England had a government it overwhelmingly rejected at the ballot box? We currently have a Tory government who won 1 thats ONE out of 59 seats in the last general election, but they still govern our country, I'm assuming poor oppressed England can point to similar democratic deficits where a party that gained less than 2% of the seats in England at a general election governed England? No? Didn't think so. Governed by celts my ass.

[David Guyatt]

That very large Scottish bank is owned 81% by the British government now, as otherwise it would've gone belly up in 2008 with massive losses and rotten assets.

One thing about the Scottish debate that is really never discussed, is we poor English who are not masters in our own house and who have suffered under the burden of celtic party leaders - mainly scots, but some Irish and a few Welsh too. Over the past many decades, British political party leaders of the three main partiers are celtic in origin - to a greater or lesser degree. Check it out. Britain is run by celts in other words, and has been for decades past.

As Michael Caine used to say, "not many people know that"... ::

Come on be serious this is absolutely ridiculous nonsense you are talking here I'm afraid. You are run by celts for the last 30 years? Utter tripe, we have been run by England for 300 years and continue to be so, you have had precisely zero 'celts' as leaders in the last 30 years, you are talking ethnicity by using that term, Blair, not a celtic name, was vaguely 'Scottish', Brown, not a celtic name either, headed a government composed almost entirely of English people as all governments of the UK always have been, and governed according to the needs and wants of the south-east of England nowhere else, that is utterly, completely ridiculous to say that and mildly offensive.

Do we decide when you go to war? Who with, for how long, for what reasons and in what way it is prosecuted? No, you do that for us, do we set your budget for all public spending throughout the whole of England? No, you do that for us, do we represent you in foreign affairs and diplomacy? No, you do that for us, governed by celts honestly I don't think I've ever read anything as stupid in all my life. Poor oppressed you eh, just collecting all the taxes for the whole UK, deciding how they are spent and where, deciding what is in the 'national interest' meaning we all have to pay for it (strangely enough genereally infrastructure projects in the south-east of England), deciding which powers are inconsequential enough to gift the Scottish parliament like crumbs from your table, governed by celts I honestly can't believe anyone could write something as ludicrous as that and assume it was simply a bad joke.

I said check it out Malcolm. It's easy to do, rather than just revert to old tired insults.

I note only that a disproportionate number of party leaders for the last several decades (mostly post the awful Thatchler) has been of partial or full Scottish, Irish, or Welsh parentage or born. Yes, it's a peculiarity, and yes it's quite unfathomable, but it is absolutely true. Blair, Brown, Cameron, Steel, Grimond, Ashdown, Kinnock, Smith, Duncan-Smith, (but probably not Howard who was, non-the-less born in Wales), Kennedy, Campbell. The Liberal Party seems to be a particular preserve of Scots since the turn of the last century btw (see HERE), which very likely had something to do with Scottish Freemasonry and related Rosicrucian connections (hence the Reform Club - hence RC = Rosy Cross etc).

Personally, I don't think it makes a farts difference either way today, as we're dealing with an establishment creating and/or protecting its wealth at the expense of genuine democracy which is, for me, a complete fairy tale.

Whereas you have a very clear and definite position on the Scottish-English debate, I have none. Sorry. For me it is Culdees Sack, that goes nowhere and is, actually a false argument. I mean no disrespect by this. I care little about tribal matters. It's divisive.

But that's just me.

Clear the barrels by all means, but blow the smoke well clear in order to see what is there to be seen.

[Malcolm John]

You just try to insult Scottish nationalism by calling it tribal matters there's nothing tribal about it, its easy to sit on your throne and thown down insults about how tribal we are for wanting to run our own country when you run yours and 3 others, when you would never accept the position we are in, its civic nationalism we just want to be like any other country in the world and run our own affairs cause we think we would do a better job of it than you do and we would be better off too, if thats tirbal I'm John Cleese. You may have had a handful of 'celtic' party leaders in recent past big deal we have governments that are 95% English for the last 300 plus years, is that tribal? Are we tribal for not liking that? Do you think Canadians would want to be governed by Washington? Would they be tribal for opposing that?

[Malcolm John]

And its not a false argument you just have to denigrate it cause its uncomfortable for you to admit its your country that are the colonial oppressors, how can I take you seriously with an attitude like that.

[David Guyatt]

You just try to insult Scottish nationalism by calling it tribal matters there's nothing tribal about it, its easy to sit on your throne and thown down insults about how tribal we are for wanting to run our own country when you run yours and 3 others, when you would never accept the position we are in, its civic nationalism we just want to be like any other country in the world and run our own affairs cause we think we would do a better job of it than you do and we would be better off too, if thats tirbal I'm John Cleese. You may have had a handful of 'celtic' party leaders in recent past big deal we have governments that are 95% English for the last 300 plus years, is that tribal? Are we tribal for not liking that? Do you think Canadians would want to be governed by Washington? Would they be tribal for opposing that?

You seem hell bent on being insulted don't you. As I explained I don't care a jot about it. For me it is tribalism of the most oblvious kind. If you find that insulting, be my guest.

There is a far bigger picture that your parochial attitude is seemingly blind to.

I sit in England knowing that my democratic vote is absolutely meaningless - a gimmick to make me and others feel they have a choice when they really don't. It's not a democracy Malcolm, but an "elective dictatorship", as Lord Hailsham once described it. Those who do vote (I refuse to, btw) have a couple of seconds in the Sun. Once there vote is in, the prime minister then assumes the powers of a dictator for five years.

Armed with this knowledge I don't set out to harangue Scots about their enforced bended knee to the English yoke for a measly 300 hundred years. Why would I? I'm under the same boot as you and they are.

Let's remember history and recall that Englishmen and women have suffered a thousand years of precisely the same fate, ever since the Norman Conquest. Prior to that it was the Roman yoke - with a brief interlude during the reign of Boadicea of the Icene tribe (a celt). The Romans never got up to Scotland proper did they.

And the fact is that these days we are all ruled by America. You in Scotland, we in England, those in Wales and NI. We are their subjects. We all do as the US president damn well says, and each prime minister since Harold Wilson has bent his knee to the incumbent of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Many more of them before Wilson too, dating back to WWII. Wilson at least tried to get some degree of independence.

So if anyone has a right to be angry at the unfairness of the world, it is the ordinary English, who have been relentlessly conquered and subjugated by foreign devils for over 2000 years.

**

Did you know that the US planned to invade Canada in the late 1930's in order to gain control of her massive natural wealth?

PS. my family are Huguenots and were forced to flee France several hundred years ago by the Vatican. But I can't muster up any steam to get riled up about this. It's history. I do take the Vatican to task often, but not because of that, but because of their endless crookedness and corruption as a state player. I think you need to adopt a similar attitude. Even if you did get independence you'd still be governed by greedy crooks and still be under the thumb and lack any meaningful say in your affairs.

Choosing your own crook is, for me, an exercise in futility.

[Malcolm John]

I don't even know what to say to nonsense like this, except its irrelevant what it is to you, it only matters what it actually is, and what it actually is is certainly not tribal, or parochial, another word you throw in deliberately to denigrate and insult. Scotland is a country. You live in a country that has no democratic deficit at all, I don't, we're not happy about that, I don't know what could possibly be considered unreasonable, parochial or tribal about that.

[Malcolm John]

Parochialism is the state of mind, whereby one focuses on small sections of an issue rather than considering its wider context. More generally, it consists of being narrow in scope. In that respect, it is a synonym of "provincial". It may, particularly when used pejoratively, be contrasted to universalism.[SUP][1][/SUP]
The term originates from the idea of a parish ([Late] Latin: parochia), one of the smaller divisions within many Christian churches such as the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches.



There is a definition of parochial, provincial. Is Scotland a province? No its a country, therefore parochial just doesn't apply.

[David Guyatt]

Frankly, I have no further interest in discussing what has become a circular argument with outburst of hysterical nationalism.