Scottish Referendum question(s)

Drew_TNBD

Agree with all of.that

UnclePsychosis

Fretwired;331309" said:

johnnyurq said:





And 2014 is the anniversary of the start of the First World War unless

you're in Scotland where it's the anniversary of the battle of

Banockburn. Was Robert the Bruce a Scot?



Fairly offensive when you consider that Scots were and are proud of the effort and sacrifice made by the British army in WWI and WWII.











Calm down that man. Not offensive. My mothers grandfather was a sergeant in the Scots Guards in WW1 and I have his medals so I'm well aware of the sacrifice made by Scots soldiers. My point was Salmond has chosen to push Banockburn rather than the start of WW1

.

Care to offer some proof of this utterly baseless assertion?

Living in Scotland I've lost count of the number of WW1 commemorations. I haven't seen any for Bannockburn. Literally not one.

Anyone who thinks this is all about the SNP and Salmond needs to do some maths. Even the most pessimistic polls are projecting that the best part of two million people are going to vote Yes. The SNP have a membership of 25,000 and have never got near 2 million votes in an election.

It's not about Salmond. I know he makes an easy scapegoat to fling shit at but it's about far more than him.

Fretwired

johnnyurq said:

Fretwired said:

johnnyurq said:

And 2014 is the anniversary of the start of the First World War unless you're in Scotland where it's the anniversary of the battle of Banockburn. Was Robert the Bruce a Scot?

Fairly offensive when you consider that Scots were and are proud of the effort and sacrifice made by the British army in WWI and WWII.

Calm down that man. Not offensive. My mothers grandfather was a sergeant in the Scots Guards in WW1 and I have his medals so I'm well aware of the sacrifice made by Scots soldiers. My point was Salmond has chosen to push Banockburn rather than the start of WW1 as it was a victory against the English whereas WW1 was a victory for the union and its empire against a common enemy.

And if you think that's offensive try this:

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/6572-scottish-labour-mp-claims-scots-celebrate-bannockburn-because-english-were-murdered

This is the trouble with nationalism be it the SNP or the BNP. It aims to divide people.

For the final time I am not a Nat and what you linked to is offensive but then your assertion that in Scotland we glorified Bannockburn and paid no heed to WWI is also offensive for different reasons.

You need to calm down. Why was 2014 chosen by Salmond for the referendum? Because it's the anniversary of the battle of Banockburn. Salmond hoped that the two day commemoration of Robert the Bruce’s famous victory over the English in June would rekindle the embers of patriotism ahead of September’s vote on separation.

Conversely Cameron decided to celebrate the start of WW1 and hold events in Scotland to boost the feeling of Britishness. You celebrate the end of wars not their beginning so there wasn't much appetite in Scotland for commemorating the start of WW1 especially as the Scots bore proportionally more deaths than the English and the loss of so many men pushed the Scottish economy into a depression after WW1.

If you find all this offensive then fine. This whole campaign is stuffed with nationalistic nonsense. And it's hard to have a serious debate when the head of the SNP refuses to clarify his plans. He could start with his plans for a Scottish currency.

Whatever happens relations between Scotland and England will be soured. A YES vote will result in months of bickering over the terms of seperation. A NO vote will result in demands for Devo Max and no doubt the referendum will be revisited again if the Tories get into power at Westminster in 2015.

ICBM

For what it's worth I don't particularly like or trust Salmond, and I think he has handled the debate poorly. He is not why I will be voting yes, and many of us realise that we don't have to keep him for long afterwards if we don't want to - he and the SNP can be voted out if we want.

There is at least one person in Scottish politics who I respect a lot more than him, and I hope he will stay and work for Scotland if the vote does go for independence. It would be difficult but I think he would.

Alastair Darling.

Fretwired

ICBM said:

For what it's worth I don't particularly like or trust Salmond, and I think he has handled the debate poorly. He is not why I will be voting yes, and many of us realise that we don't have to keep him for long afterwards if we don't want to - he and the SNP can be voted out if we want.

There is at least one person in Scottish politics who I respect a lot more than him, and I hope he will stay and work for Scotland if the vote does go for independence. It would be difficult but I think he would.

Alastair Darling.

Darling would have made a good Labour Party leader. Bright guy.

ICBM

Fretwired said:

Darling would have made a good Labour Party leader. Bright guy.

But I suspect without quite the ego to want to go for it. Which is perhaps not a bad thing.

I would also give him a lot more credit than he's usually been given - in fact he has been partly blamed for the crisis, which I think is unfair - for starting to sort out the mess Brown created.

I also think he's won most of the arguments about independence, but been unable to answer the real question of what the majority of people in Scotland want - because it was specifically ruled out early on, in the same way as Cameron defeated electoral reform and sidelined the Lib Dems by offering a straight choice of the two least popular alternatives.

But at least if we vote Yes we automatically get electoral reform too - the Scottish parliament is already elected by PR, that was set up under Labour to prevent the SNP ever getting a majority...

hungrymark

UnclePsychosis;331155" said:

[quote="hungrymark;331140"]I'm not sure if Uncle Psychosis and Johnnyurq might be reading a bit of anti-scots stuff where it wasn't intended. Easy chaps.

ICBM was explicitly called "anti-English" a few posts ago, but it's me and Johnny who need to go easy?

erm, Ok.
[/quote]

Saying there is 'anti-english' sentiment isn't the same as being anti-scottish.

Fretwired

UnclePsychosis said:

Care to offer some proof of this utterly baseless assertion?

Not baseless - fact. Google is your friend. Salmond pushed through the two day Banockburn event and built a visitor centre whilst Cameron decided we should commemorate the beginning of WW1 which many people in Scotland [and England] were against. Some low key events were staged. I also think that the Scottish Labour Party managed to get a British Armed Forced event to coincide with Salmond's Banockburn event in an attempt to hit ticket sales.

Joan McAlpine makes some good points .. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/joan-mcalpine-slaughter-great-war-2677005

johnnyurq

Fretwired;331381" said:


You need to calm down. Why was 2014 chosen by Salmond for the referendum? Because it's the anniversary of the battle of Banockburn. Salmond hoped that the two day commemoration of Robert the Bruce’s famous victory over the English in June would rekindle the embers of patriotism ahead of September’s vote on separation.



Conversely Cameron decided to celebrate the start of WW1 and hold events in Scotland to boost the feeling of Britishness. You celebrate the end of wars not their beginning so there wasn't much appetite in Scotland for commemorating the start of WW1 especially as the Scots bore proportionally more deaths than the English and the loss of so many men pushed the Scottish economy into a depression after WW1.



If you find all this offensive then fine. This whole campaign is stuffed with nationalistic nonsense. And it's hard to have a serious debate when the head of the SNP refuses to clarify his plans. He could start with his plans for a Scottish currency.



Whatever happens relations between Scotland and England will be soured. A YES vote will result in months of bickering over the terms of seperation. A NO vote will result in demands for Devo Max and no doubt the referendum will be revisited again if the Tories get into power at Westminster in 2015.

LOL I am perfectly calm, thanks for your concern.


The thing is if you continue making dumb sweeping generalisations based on nothing of substance at all I am afraid I will take exception.

The other thing that is funny is most didn't have a scooby when the Bannockburn anniversary was and even older farts like me have to think hard to remember when it is much less this seemingly bigger anniversary.

We don't sit memorising the dates of landmark battles so we can go and piss eople off about it.

In any case it was a fairly unexpected outcome to that battle against the odds and every nation that has won a battle against the odds and as the rank underdogs celebrate the victory not the slaughter.

Agincourt anyone! Or even a whole lot of the 100 years war to name but some.

That is no different to Bannockburn along with several battles/wars where England has punched well above their weight. Most nations do the same for similar events i.e. winning against form.

If I had a pound for every Culloden, Flodden etc glorified by Engish nats I would have a nice extra guitar from the proceeds.

I just laugh because beyond a bit if good humoured banter why people think it is relevant today apart from a cautionary tale from history is beyond me, nice stories and can get you a bit patriotic but not very relevant.

In any case both Salmond and Cameron's efforts to whip up any fervour or nonsense failed to materialise so I do not see why you are getting so entrenched on this kind of thing.

I agree on relations getting soured though and the point I have made in the past it is already happening now as can be seen by the at times open hostility based on BS. It is sad but some of yours and other sweeping generalisations are doing nothing to help at all.

Polls were done down south where we are led to believe that in the event of a No a campaign would be started to scotch (see what I did there) Dave and Co's firm offer of more devo, not meaning you personally BTW or anyone here just pointing out tat there have been the polls reported findings.

I am afraid that smacks of payback to me, why not campiagn/try and get better deal and governance down your way instead of resorting to negative and petty payback, I sincerely hope it is a load of media BS whipped up to cause more shit and not an actual thing that will grow worse as the months go on.

Blair tried and failed to recant on the promise for the Devo we have at present and it would be depressing if that sort of behaviour does raise its head again, more broken promises by Westminster would reinforce what a bunch of shitheads they really are and how right we are to want to sack them off.

Dave etc would have an easy get out clause if these polls hold any water and are in fact actually representative of the will of the English electorate. The old well guv the people have spoken so that means we have to renege on our promise for more Devo/Powers, so sorry.

Before you say that is crap that weasel Dany Alexander was on a televised debate here in Inverness and sepcifically in answer to questions on it stated that he was able to give assurances that these powers etc will materialise in the event of a No vote. He also said he was speaking for the government and not just the Lib Dems and that it was a cross party agreement to do so.

We shall see soon enough how it all pans out.

UnclePsychosis

Fretwired;331433" said:

UnclePsychosis said:






Care to offer some proof of this utterly baseless assertion?
















Not baseless - fact. Google is your friend. Salmond pushed through the two day Banockburn event and built a visitor centre whilst Cameron decided we should commemorate the beginning of WW1 which many people in Scotland [and England] were against. Some low key events were staged. I also think that the Scottish Labour Party managed to get a British Armed Forced event to coincide with Salmond's Banockburn event in an attempt to hit ticket sales.



Joan McAlpine makes some good points .. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/joan-mcalpine-slaughter-great-war-2677005

That's proof that Salmond wants to commemorate Bannockburn.

That is not proof that he does so at the expense of any WW1 commemoration which is what you accused him of.

Only a week or two ago there was a WW1 remembrance parade that walked literally right past the Scottish parliament.

Fretwired

Remind me when England last celebrated the victory at Agincourt with a two day event. Or any of the numerous victories we've had over Scotland? Answer: never. There was an ill-advised Trafalgar day but that won't be repeated. And I can't think of the BNP going on about Culloden ... they might bang on about the West Lothian question.

Salmond is just trying to stir anti-English resentment. Apparently we'll hear more of it tonight if reports in the newspapers are anything to go by.

johnnyurq

Well not recently have there been any but I am certain I do remember the odd celebration of things like Agincourt and BNP types invoke it at the drop of a hat including them going on about Culloden and how the slaughter there was quite right don't you know.

This I have witnessed first hand (I live 4 miles from Culloden and worked up there for the council for several years) and as we all know the aftermath was beyond the pale and not a great thing to want to glorify, but you see I know logically that it is a small amount of twats that hold those views and will not tar all with those views. Which is the point I was trying to make by highlighting what you had said in the first place.

Assholes like that and the ones mentioned in your link are everywhere in all walks of life.

As usual the are unaware that these battles like Culloden are rarely as cut and dried given it was a complex mix of disparate agendas and goals from several different countries.

So what Salmond and Dave tried and failed to whip up anti whatever resentment, nobody gave a shit or rose to the bait as far as I can see, both were non events so fuck em.

But that is not what you started off saying in any case because you used the generalisation of Scotland as a whole and not some or a small subsection got their panties in a bunch over it. Not relevant as was Dave's behaviour.

You are still making the frankly ludicrous parallel that what Salmond say we all agree with and hold the same views without thought. Which I am afraid I find a bit dismissive and offensive TBH.

BTW I have no issues with any country celebrating their famous victories as underdogs, as long as it is not hijacked by the more shittier elements or used to glorify the actual business of the slaughter itself which is never right in any circumstances.

I really never saw anyone getting all indignant here about Dave's ploy and from where I sitting he and Salmond were largely ignored and ridiculed in equal measure for being asshats. (cue link to half a dozen neanderthals being twats)

Again with the West Lothian crap, we do not like or endorse the stupidity of it but please lobby your MP's about it because it is Westminster refusing to sort it once and for all. not your average Scot. We agree dude so stop flogging a dead horse.

Of course it would need to address it for all devolved governments not just Scotland. Or is it only because of the erroneously perceived "Scottish Mafia" in Westminster pulling all the strings schtick again? Get thee to the David Icke site forthwith and fit your tinfoil helmet sir.



Joking BTW and largely meant in jest for that last bit.

ICBM

A lot of people in England don't seem to be aware that the SNP Westminster MPs abstain from England-only votes on principle. Only the English parties (ie Labour almost exclusively since they're the only ones with a significant number of MPs) try to use their Scottish votes to their own advantage. What's bizarre is that the Tories and Lib Dems - who have the most to gain and least to lose from answering the West Lothian Question - have chosen not to do so in the five years when they have had ample opportunity.

A lot of people also don't realise that there were probably more Scots fighting for the government than for the Jacobites at Culloden. It was about which dynasty and which religion would rule in both countries, not which country would rule the other.

Fretwired

ICBM said:

A lot of people in England don't seem to be aware that the SNP Westminster MPs abstain from England-only votes on principle. Only the English parties (ie Labour almost exclusively since they're the only ones with a significant number of MPs) try to use their Scottish votes to their own advantage. What's bizarre is that the Tories and Lib Dems - who have the most to gain and least to lose from answering the West Lothian Question - have chosen not to do so in the five years when they have had ample opportunity.

A lot of people also don't realise that there were probably more Scots fighting for the government than for the Jacobites at Culloden. It was about which dynasty and which religion would rule in both countries, not which country would rule the other.

Most people do realise it's only the Labour folk that vote. Salmond's respected in England as he's fighting for his own country something the LibLabCon mob don't do. And remember that in England we only see Salmond in terms of the pro devolution argument so the assumption is you're an SNP Nat if you want to vote yes.

As for Culloden I can't think of the BNP going on about it - then generally liked to give the French and the Germans a bad time. And English regiments fought on both sides of the battle. If I recall a Manchester regiment fought with the Jacobites.

ICBM

I suspect on both questions you are rather in the minority due to being fairly well educated on such matters…

I also don't remember the BNP saying anything about Culloden, but I might have missed it since I tended to ignore them anyway. And yes there were certainly English soldiers in the Jacobite army.

Anyway, this is the 21st century not the 18th. If we can get along with the Germans when we were at war with the Nazis within living memory, what happened in this country 300 years ago is irrelevant.

Oops, Godwin .

Bogwhoppit

ICBM said:

 And yes there were certainly English soldiers in the Jacobite army.

 

 

Most of them (around 350) were unemployed, and had no allegiance to the Jacobite cause.

 

Sorry, my academic training tends to kick in when history is debated

 

 

As you were..

VimFuego

hmmm, we're making a load of the army redundant, looks like now wouldn't be a good time to have a load of unemployed soldiers wandering about the place...

PolarityMan

So just sitting down now the debate now...who's watching?

hungrymark

Haha, who on earth ever mentions Culloden?!

hungrymark

PolarityMan;331762" said:

So just sitting down now the debate now...who's watching?

I'm going to watch until I get bored. Probably about 5 minutes.