The Scotch Question
Robert Henderson
based outside the UK with loans secured against everything from negative
equity properties in Dublin to hedge fund assets in Caribbean tax havens
and container ships docked in ports around the world... In total, �167bn
of assets underwritten by British taxpayers are overseas. Only �114.5bn
are in the UK." Telegraph 8 12 2009"
The passage above is symptomatic of the Scotch character's innate
childlike irresponsibility and recklessness as expressed in
circumstances where Scotchmen manage to get their hands on someone
else's money , normally English money.
The Darien fiasco in the 1690s when Scotchland was ruined by the fantasy
dreamed up by the Scotch chancer William Patterson and the criminality
of some of his Scotch associates.
A little later Louise XV was rash enough to entrust French finances to a
Scotchman by the name of John Law who managed to ruin irredeemably the
French finances and currency.
By the Act of Union Scotchland began her 300 year history of living off
English money with the Act stipulating that Scotland should pay per
capita only a tenth of what England did. This dipping in English pockets
has continued to this day with the Barnett Formula.
In our own time there has also been a prime example of a Scotchman with
his hands on vast amounts of English money, namely, Gordon Brown. A
self-proclaimed financial genius in the mould of Paterson and Law,
tBrown through his chancellorship single-handedly managed to reduce
Britain to penury through his gross public overspending, absence of
meaningful financial regulation, the fiddling of the public accounts
with Enron-style off-the-books accounting through vast amounts of PPP
and PFi and, to put the cherry on the fiscal mismanagement cake, the
selling off of a large part of Britain's gold reserve at a modern low of
around $200 an ounce when it is now over $1000 an ounce.
At the Scotch national level, the Scotch score highly by every social
ill indicator: health, crime, educational incapacity, drug taking,
racism and unemployment outside the public sector.
Wherever one looks, be it in the highest places or the lowest, the same
Scotch traits of lunatic recklessness, a toddler-level inability to take
responsibility, a childlike dependence on a parent-substitute, in this
case the English and a complete inability to operate in an advanced
society such as England.
It is clear both from their general behaviour and the hilariously inept
performance of the "wee, pretendy parliament" since 2000 that the Scotch
are utterly unfitted to rule themselves or to occupy any position of
power or influence anywhere. The question then arises, what is to be
done with the Scotch? The only humane solution is surely to adopt that
followed by the governments of the USA and Australia when dealing with
their aboriginal peoples who simply could not cope with an advanced
modern society: institute reservations. This would allow the Scotch to
be placed where they can do no harm to themselves or any others.
Where would the reservations be? The most suitable areas are the SW of
Scotland including Glasgow and the northern reaches of the Highlands.
Much of Scotland is already English in all but name because of the large
numbers of English men and women who have gone to Scotland on missionary
work amongst the natives - one thinks particularly Edinburgh anhd the
university of St Andrews. Consequently, much of the Eastern Lowlands
and the southern parts of the Highlands and many of the Islands are
already essentially English. Therefore, the removal of the few
remaining Scotch from those areas to the reservations should cause
little upset or inconvenience either socially or economically, for the
re-settled Scotch will doubtless show the love for their own people that
is displayed so emphatically by their centuries long propensity to leave
their "beloved ain land", while Scotch men and women engage in such tiny
amounts of useful labour - most of Scotland's GDP coming from
English-taxpayer funded public service jobs with most of what little
private sector work being provided by foreigners who own everything from
the oil companies to the whiskey distilleries.
Once in their reservations, their culture must of course be respected.
Hence, the Scotch should be left to indulge their favourite habits of
"Heetin' t'Anglish", holding their hands out for English gold, eating
deep-fried everything, shooting up, getting disgustingly drunk and
filling the streets with seas of vomit and urine as they do when
supporting their football team, sectarianism and becoming the size of
good sized barrage balloons.
RH
--
Robert Henderson
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
hal
<phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>"Most of the �281.9bn RBS has placed under taxpayer protection are
>based outside the UK with loans secured against everything from negative
>equity properties in Dublin to hedge fund assets in Caribbean tax havens
>and container ships docked in ports around the world... In total, �167bn
>of assets underwritten by British taxpayers are overseas. Only �114.5bn
>are in the UK." Telegraph 8 12 2009"
>
>The passage above is symptomatic of the Scotch character's innate
>childlike irresponsibility and recklessness as expressed in
>circumstances where Scotchmen manage to get their hands on someone
>else's money , normally English money.
Payback for what you cocksuckers did to William Wallace. If you
bastards had given Scotland their independence when they wanted it you
wouldn't have this problem.
charlie6
William Wallace - I once saw him play for St Mirren - bloody awful.
What you need is a few decent national heroes like Dennis Law he was
in a different class.
McKevvy
Thats handy having your website in your sig. I have a few friends that
would visit if I asked them.
McKevvy
charlie6
But there again Dennis had a bit of sense he played in England.
Robert Peffers
<hal> wrote in message news:4b1e878f...@news.newsguy.com...
Please excuse this piggy back post.
>
>>"Most of the �281.9bn RBS has placed under taxpayer protection are
>>based outside the UK with loans secured against everything from negative
>>equity properties in Dublin to hedge fund assets in Caribbean tax havens
>>and container ships docked in ports around the world... In total, �167bn
>>of assets underwritten by British taxpayers are overseas. Only �114.5bn
>>are in the UK." Telegraph 8 12 2009"
>>
>>The passage above is symptomatic of the Scotch
Scotch is a drink you idiot.
>> character's innate
>>childlike irresponsibility and recklessness as expressed in
>>circumstances where Scotchmen manage to get their hands on someone
>>else's money , normally English money.
There was no English money, idiot, What you mean is United Kingdom of Great
Britain & Northern Ireland money.
England has no parliament, so England has no block grant, no budget of her
own, and is funded as the UK of GB & NI.
>
> Payback for what you cocksuckers did to William Wallace. If you
> bastards had given Scotland their independence when they wanted it you
> wouldn't have this problem.
You must excuse these people's ignorance of how their country is run.
In their, "Little Englander", mentality the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland is the same thing as England.
If you make the slightest attempt to educate them you will enter upon a task
that has defied the efforts of many educated people going back for a great
many years. The fact that all these people have failed to even scratch the
surface of this very thick surface speaks volumes about the mentality of,
"Little Englanders".
It is fortunate for the rest of the UK that these people are not
representative of the majority of that fine nation of England.
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
"charlie6" <char...@mail.org> wrote in message
news:7ceb5e07-5122-4bae...@9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Indeed he was. The greatest live sporting occasion I ever saw was when the
Scottish football team with Dennis Law and Jim Baxter included took on the
English World Cup winning team on the English home turf and made absolute
fools of them. To see an English international defender attempting to take
the ball from Slim Jim, while Baxter played keepie uppie, was a sight never
to be forgotten.
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
Well someone had to teach you the game. I'm glad to say the host of Scottish
managers are keeping that tradition alive. Did you not know about, "The
Scottish Professors"? Google is your friend.
--
Auld Bob
Farmer Giles
"McKevvy" <vicko_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1c8a3379-cf0f-4f78...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
_________________________
That sounds suspiciously like a threat of violence.For your sake, I hope
no-one does 'visit' him.
You normally sound like a reasonable chap, so I'm sure that you'd like to
reconsider your remarks.
Eddie the one
<peff...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>The passage above is symptomatic of the Scotch
>Scotch is a drink you idiot.
No it is not. How often do you need telling?
It is a diminutive of scottish and has been in use for at least 400
years.
And
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch_Corner
I had to laugh when Hammond on Top Gear recently referred to it as
'scottish corner'. Talk about political correcteness...
http://www.scotlands-enchanting-kingdom.com/scotch-pancakes.html
http://www.handmadescotcheggs.co.uk/shop/
http://www.scottishrecipes.co.uk/scotchbroth.htm
lorimers scotch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caledonian_Brewery
charlie6
> "McKevvy" <vicko_zoo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I think it's probably just a language mix up. I speak fluent ancient
Glaswegian so I will address him in his native tongue and ascertain
the true facts.
charlie6
ello Jock r u a rubbery gub or is ur jocks banjo im - eh?. r u gonna
give im tackety boot inis tadger - eh?
Paul C
And can you provide an authoritative contemporary source which offers
"Scotch" as a description of the people of Scotland?
Andrew
<phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> said:
> "Most of the �281.9bn RBS has placed under taxpayer protection are
> based outside the UK with loans secured against everything from
> negative equity properties in Dublin to hedge fund assets in Caribbean
> tax havens and container ships docked in ports around the world... In
> total, �167bn of assets underwritten by British taxpayers are overseas.
> Only �114.5bn are in the UK." Telegraph 8 12 2009"
>
> The passage above is symptomatic of the Scotch character's innate
> childlike irresponsibility and recklessness as expressed in
> circumstances where Scotchmen manage to get their hands on someone
> else's money , normally English money.
>
> The Darien fiasco in the 1690s when Scotchland was ruined by the
> fantasy dreamed up by the Scotch chancer William Patterson and the
> criminality of some of his Scotch associates.
That would be the chancer who founded the Bank of England, would it?
>
> A little later Louise XV was rash enough to entrust French finances to
> a Scotchman by the name of John Law who managed to ruin irredeemably
> the French finances and currency.
No - that would be the John Law who kept the French economy going when
its irredeemably backward finances were screaming toward the buffers.
Do try to read a bit of history before you quote it
>
> By the Act of Union Scotchland began her 300 year history of living off
> English money with the Act stipulating that Scotland should pay per
> capita only a tenth of what England did. This dipping in English
> pockets has continued to this day with the Barnett Formula.
So - we pay 10% of the finances while making up 8% of the population.
I'm pretty sure that clears up whose pockets are being dipped into
>
> In our own time there has also been a prime example of a Scotchman with
> his hands on vast amounts of English money, namely, Gordon Brown. A
> self-proclaimed financial genius in the mould of Paterson and Law,
> tBrown through his chancellorship single-handedly managed to reduce
> Britain to penury through his gross public overspending, absence of
> meaningful financial regulation, the fiddling of the public accounts
> with Enron-style off-the-books accounting through vast amounts of PPP
> and PFi and, to put the cherry on the fiscal mismanagement cake, the
> selling off of a large part of Britain's gold reserve at a modern low
> of around $200 an ounce when it is now over $1000 an ounce.
Yada yada yada
> <
<shite snipped>
Andrew
> On 8 Dec, 17:16, charlie6 <charl...@mail.org> wrote:
>> On 8 Dec, 17:07, hal wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 14:40:03 +0000, Robert Henderson
>>
>>> <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> "Most of the �281.9bn �RBS has placed under taxpayer protection ar
> e
>>>> based outside the UK with loans secured against everything from negati
> ve
>>>> equity properties in Dublin to hedge fund assets in Caribbean tax have
> ns
>>>> and container ships docked in ports around the world... In total, �1
> 67bn
>>>> of assets underwritten by British taxpayers are overseas. Only �114.
> 5bn
>>>> are in the UK." Telegraph 8 12 2009"
>>
>>>> The passage above is symptomatic of the Scotch character's innate
>>>> childlike irresponsibility and recklessness as expressed in
>>>> circumstances where Scotchmen manage to get their hands on someone
>>>> else's money , normally English money.
>>
>>> Payback for what you cocksuckers did to William Wallace. �If you
>>> bastards had given Scotland their independence when they wanted it you
>>> wouldn't have this problem. �
>>
>> William Wallace - I once saw him play for St Mirren - bloody awful.
>> What you need is a few decent national heroes �like Dennis Law he was
>> in a different class.
>
> But there again Dennis had a bit of sense he played in England.
You may need to revise that
Robert Henderson
>>
>>The passage above is symptomatic of the Scotch character's innate
>>childlike irresponsibility and recklessness as expressed in
>>circumstances where Scotchmen manage to get their hands on someone
>>else's money , normally English money.
>
>Payback for what you cocksuckers did to William Wallace.
Oh, the Anglo-Norman-Welsh chap you mean? RH
> If you bastards had given Scotland their independence when they wanted
>it you wouldn't have this problem.
Scotch land had its independence until 1707 when it freely gave it
away for English gold...... RH
Robert Henderson
<d007e4f1-9a63-4434...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
charlie6 <char...@mail.org> writes
>>
>> You normally sound like a reasonable chap, so I'm sure that you'd like to
>> reconsider your remarks.
>
>I think it's probably just a language mix up. I speak fluent ancient
>Glaswegian so I will address him in his native tongue
Doubtless something along the lines of "Doya wunt me ta be yer screeb,
Jimmy?" RH
> and ascertain the true facts.
--
Robert Henderson
Giles <Gi...@nospam.com> writes
>> --
>> Robert Henderson
>> Personal website:http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
>
>Thats handy having your website in your sig. I have a few friends that
>would visit if I asked them.
>_________________________
>
>That sounds suspiciously like a threat of violence.For your sake, I
>hope no-one does 'visit' him.
I have always found that a firm English hand in the literal sense is
most efficacious when dealing with over-excited Scotchmen... RH
Robert Henderson
<pa...@omne.uk.net> writes
>>McEwans
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McEwan%27s
>
>
>And can you provide an authoritative contemporary source which offers
>"Scotch" as a description of the people of Scotland?
>
Burchfield [1] has some interesting things to say on this topic:
Scotch. Scots, Scottish. It is not pos-
sible to set down here all the complica-
tions of this somewhat sensitive group
of words. The adjective Scotch, in origin
a contracted variant of Scottish, 'had been
adopted into the northern vernacular
before the end of the 18th c.; it [was] used
regularly by Burns, and subsequently by
Scott' (OED). But 'since the mid-19th c.
there has been in Scotland a growing
tendency to discard the form altogether,
Scottish, or less frequently Scots, being
substituted' (OED). Scots is also a long-
standing variant of Scottish. The outcome
is that all three adjectives are still cur-
rent, but Scotch is the least frequent and
survives mainly in certain collocations,
e.g. Scotch broth, Scotch egg, Scotch mist,
Scotch terrier, Scotch tweed, Scotch whisky,
and a few others. Scots is the term regu-
larly used of the form of English spoken
in (esp. Lowlands) Scotland. It also occurs
in the names of certain Scottish regi-
ments. But the all-embracing general ad-
jective meaning 'of or relating to
Scotland, its history, its day-to-day life,
or its inhabitants', is Scottish. These are
middle-class preferences. 'Paradoxically,'
A.J. Aitken reports in OCELang. (1992),'for
working class Scots the common form
has long been Scotch ... and the native
form Scots is sometimes regarded as an
Anglicized affectation.' Outside Scot-
land, and esp. outside the UK, Scottish
preferences are less well-known. Scotch is
likely to occur, both as adj. and noun, in
contexts which middle-class Scots would
regard as either droll or improper.
[1] R W BURCHFIELD (ed.): Fowler's Modern English Usage. 3rd ed, Oxford,
Clarendon Press, 1996. ISBN: 0 19 869136 2.
Farmer Giles
"Andrew" <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
news:2009120901295216807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
For a chap who advises others 'to read a bit of history', you seem to have a
lot of trouble reading what's in front of you.
What bit of 'per capita' don't you understand?
Robert Henderson
<thec...@macunlimited.net> writes
>On 2009-12-08 14:40:03 +0000, Robert Henderson
><phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> said:
>
>> "Most of the �281.9bn RBS has placed under taxpayer protection are
>>based outside the UK with loans secured against everything from
>>negative equity properties in Dublin to hedge fund assets in Caribbean
>>tax havens and container ships docked in ports around the world... In
>>total, �167bn of assets underwritten by British taxpayers are
>>overseas. Only �114.5bn are in the UK." Telegraph 8 12 2009"
>> The passage above is symptomatic of the Scotch character's innate
>>childlike irresponsibility and recklessness as expressed in
>>circumstances where Scotchmen manage to get their hands on someone
>>else's money , normally English money.
>> The Darien fiasco in the 1690s when Scotchland was ruined by the
>>fantasy dreamed up by the Scotch chancer William Patterson and the
>>criminality of some of his Scotch associates.
>
>That would be the chancer who founded the Bank of England, would it?
>
No, that would be the chancer the English got rid of before he could do
any damage...RH
>> A little later Louise XV was rash enough to entrust French finances
>>to a Scotchman by the name of John Law who managed to ruin
>>irredeemably the French finances and currency.
>
>No - that would be the John Law who kept the French economy going when
>its irredeemably backward finances were screaming toward the buffers.
>Do try to read a bit of history before you quote it
>
>> By the Act of Union Scotchland began her 300 year history of living
>>off English money with the Act stipulating that Scotland should pay
>>per capita only a tenth of what England did. This dipping in English
>>pockets has continued to this day with the Barnett Formula.
>
>So - we pay 10% of the finances while making up 8% of the population.
>I'm pretty sure that clears up whose pockets are being dipped into
Learn what per capita means.... RH
>
>> In our own time there has also been a prime example of a Scotchman
>>with his hands on vast amounts of English money, namely, Gordon
>>Brown. A self-proclaimed financial genius in the mould of Paterson
>>and Law, tBrown through his chancellorship single-handedly managed
>>to reduce Britain to penury through his gross public overspending,
>>absence of meaningful financial regulation, the fiddling of the
>>public accounts with Enron-style off-the-books accounting through
>>vast amounts of PPP and PFi and, to put the cherry on the fiscal
>>mismanagement cake, the selling off of a large part of Britain's gold
>>reserve at a modern low of around $200 an ounce when it is now over $1000 an ounce.
>
>Yada yada yada
>
Failure to offer any rebuttal noted... RH
>> <
>
><shite snipped>
Paul C
<phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <rvhth5drqd1mhohq3...@4ax.com>, Paul C
><pa...@omne.uk.net> writes
>>>McEwans
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McEwan%27s
>>
>>
>>And can you provide an authoritative contemporary source which offers
>>"Scotch" as a description of the people of Scotland?
>
>>
>Burchfield [1] has some interesting things to say on this topic:
What bit of 'contemporary' are you incapable of understanding?
Harry Merrick
> In message <rvhth5drqd1mhohq3...@4ax.com>, Paul C
> <pa...@omne.uk.net> writes
>>> McEwans
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McEwan%27s
>>
>>
>> And can you provide an authoritative contemporary source which offers
>> "Scotch" as a description of the people of Scotland?
>
>>
> Burchfield [1] has some interesting things to say on this topic:
>
> Scotch. Scots, Scottish. It is not pos-
> sible to set down here all the complica-
> tions of this somewhat sensitive group
> of words. The adjective Scotch, in origin
> a contracted variant of Scottish, 'had been
> adopted into the northern vernacular
> before the end of the 18th c.; it [was] used
> regularly by Burns, and subsequently by
> Scott' (OED).
Burns was working class? Therefore he didn't know any better. He probably
would have said "done that" instead of "did that" and so forth. Working
Classes world wide fail to speak their languages properly. Is that
ignorance? No education? Bloody mindedness? Or merely bone idle laziness?
You tell me! However, grammatically and correctly, the people of Scotland
are termed Scots or Scottish. All the rest are mere obfuscations and
rhetoric. Of "course" the famous and much loved whiskey is called
"Scotch"! - It always has been so!
You cite "[1] R W BURCHFIELD (ed.): Fowler's Modern English Usage. 3rd ed,
> Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1996. ISBN: 0 19 869136 2." as your source of
> information. I note that the source actually is "Fowler's Modern English"
> 1996. That in itself shows that the term Scottish or Scots is indeed the
> oldest and therefore correct terminoligy.
It appears that Middle and Upper classes are much more respectfull of
tradition and their languages and how they should be spoken.
--
Harry Merrick.
Eddie the one
Rubbish
It is called scotch whiskey just as a certain type of ale is called
scotch ale
>
>You cite "[1] R W BURCHFIELD (ed.): Fowler's Modern English Usage. 3rd ed,
>> Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1996. ISBN: 0 19 869136 2." as your source of
>> information. I note that the source actually is "Fowler's Modern English"
>> 1996. That in itself shows that the term Scottish or Scots is indeed the
>> oldest and therefore correct terminoligy.
>
>It appears that Middle and Upper classes are much more respectfull of
>tradition and their languages and how they should be spoken.
No. Just ill educated
Robert Henderson
<m...@privacy.com> writes
>>>>pockets has continued to this day with the Barnett Formula.
>>>
>>>So - we pay 10% of the finances while making up 8% of the population.
>>>I'm pretty sure that clears up whose pockets are being dipped into
>>
>> Learn what per capita means.... RH
>
>Debt England brought to the Union? Quelle surprise! Nothing changes.
Nope, Scotchland was paid the Equivalent to settle that matter,
soupcreature and the Scotch then proceeded to put their hands in English
poclets ever further. RH
GM
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 17:34:09 -0000, "Harry Merrick"
>
> Rubbish
> It is called scotch whiskey
Wrong
GMc
GM
> In message <Xns9CDCA97D3BDDDdarev...@62.141.42.83>, soupdragon
> <m...@privacy.com> writes
>
English poclets ever further. RH
Another attempt at using Scots Robert. Well done for your efforts
although you've got it wrong again.
The word you are looking for is pauchle (or variants - pockle, paucle,
pochle, etc). This means "to steal, pilfer, embezzle, pocket, make
off with" and is indeed what the English have been doing with Scottish
money for centuries.
Happy to help.
GMc
Eddie the one
wrote:
Who cares how you spell it. the stuff is still only fit for
disinfectant
HardySpicer
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 18:32:34 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
>
> >>>The passage above is symptomatic of the Scotch
> >Scotch is a drink you idiot.
>
> No it is not. How often do you need telling?
> It is a diminutive of scottish and has been in use for at least 400
> years.
>
Err yes..but..what ignorant *nglish Twats (IETs) like yourself fail to
see is that the useage is a tad outdated! It would be like Scots
saying that the IETs use words like Breeches for Trousers or Olde for
Old.
It's uncool and out of date.
Hardy
HardySpicer
Goarde Bennet mate. Stone the bleedin crows, bit of an 'ow do you do
eer then eh?
Cor-blimey guv.
'ardy
HardySpicer
wrote:
> In message <Xns9CDCA97D3BDDDdarev...@62.141.42.83>, soupdragon
*ngland still owes the Scots many billions of pounds for saving it
during the Thatcher years. Our oil paid for so many IETs mistakes.
Hardy
Eddie the one
<gyans...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 9, 8:18�am, Eddie the one <inva...@invalid.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 18:32:34 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
>>
>> <peffer...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> >>>The passage above is symptomatic of the Scotch
>> >Scotch is a drink you idiot.
>>
>> No it is not. How often do you need telling?
>> It is a diminutive of scottish and has been in use for at least 400
>> years.
>>
>
>Err yes..but..what ignorant *nglish Twats (IETs) like yourself
Why do think I am English?
>fail to
>see is that the useage is a tad outdated! It would be like Scots
>saying that the IETs use words like Breeches for Trousers or Olde for
>Old.
>It's uncool and out of date.
'uncool' ?
Are you sure you should be posting to usenet without adult
supervision?>
Paul C
Stick to the lager, Eddie. A good old English drink (LOL!).
Paul C
<inv...@invalid.co.uk> wrote:
>It is called scotch whiskey
Doh!!!!
GM
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:41:46 -0800 (PST), GM <g...@hotmail.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >On 9 Dec, 17:47, Eddie the one <inva...@invalid.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 17:34:09 -0000, "Harry Merrick"
>
> >> Rubbish
> >> It is called scotch whiskey
>
> >Wrong
>
> >GMc
>
> Who cares how you spell it. the stuff is still only fit for
> disinfectant
Well - I suppose you are an expert on alcohol. You are welcome to
your opinion.
GMc
PS Might be better if you lay off the Pimms
Harry Merrick
<SIGH!!> That IS the point for God's sake! Of course it is called Scotch
ale! Do try to keep up!
>>
>> You cite "[1] R W BURCHFIELD (ed.): Fowler's Modern English Usage.
>> 3rd ed,
>>> Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1996. ISBN: 0 19 869136 2." as your
>>> source of information. I note that the source actually is "Fowler's
>>> Modern English" 1996. That in itself shows that the term Scottish
>>> or Scots is indeed the oldest and therefore correct terminoligy.
>>
>> It appears that Middle and Upper classes are much more respectfull of
>> tradition and their languages and how they should be spoken.
>
> No. Just ill educated
NOT very likely don't cha' know! Obviously, you, must be working class,
undereducated, a lazy bollox, whatever!
--
Harry Merrick.
Robert Henderson
<m...@privacy.com> writes
>>
>> Nope,
>
>Yup.Scotland brought a debt of �80,000. England brought �12million and
>expected the Scottish tax payer to fund it.
Nope. Scotchland was onlyt expected to pay per capita one tenth of the
amount of tax Scotchland paid, viz:
>
>IX. That whenever the sum of �1,997,763 8s 4d (and one) half penny
>shall be Enacted by the Parliament of Great Britain to be raised in
>that part of the United Kingdom now called England, on Land and other
>things usually charged in Acts of Parliament there for granting an aid
>to the Crown by a Land Tax; that part of the United Kingdom now called
>Scotland shall be charged by the same Act with a further sum of �48,000
>free of all Charges, as the Quota of Scotland to such Tax, and so
>proportionably for any greater or lesser sum raised in England by any
>Tax on Land and other things usually charged, together with the Land
>And that such Quota for Scotland in the cases aforesaid, be raised and
>collected in the same manner as the Cess now is in Scotland..........
>> Scotchland was paid the Equivalent to settle that matter,
>
>It never left Whitehall. As is the norm for English dishonesty, most of
>it ended up in the pockets of English civil servants.
Nope. Went into the pockets of the Scotch elite. RH
>Meanwhile the Scottish taxpayer saw their tax bill quadruple, to pay
>for English spendthrift policies. As I said, nothing changes.
A. J. Moss
> It's uncool and out of date.
Let that be the epitaph for Scottish, sorry, Scotch nationalism.
Scotland was never conquered, but sold its soverignity to Westminster
for money. Three hundred years on, the SNP wants it back, for free.
Not for its own sake, but just so they can sell it again, this time
to the EU.
Robert Henderson
Moss <ajm...@googlemail.com> writes
Very true,. RH
Robert Peffers
"Paul C" <pa...@omne.uk.net> wrote in message
news:51ivh5tqesog42c17...@4ax.com...
The laughable part is that when you actually read what Burchfield wrote it
turns out that Henderson has totally misread the quote. The quote actually
says the correct term for the people of Scotland is, "Scottish or Scots".
Henderson's comprehension had, as usual, let him down.
Burchfield [1] has some interesting things to say on this topic:
Scotch. Scots, Scottish. It is not pos-
middle-class preferences. *** 'Paradoxically,'
A.J. Aitken reports in OCELang. (1992),'for
working class Scots the common form
has long been Scotch ... and the native
form Scots is sometimes regarded as an
Anglicized affectation.' Outside Scot-
land, and esp. outside the UK, Scottish
preferences are less well-known. Scotch is
likely to occur, both as adj. and noun, in
contexts which middle-class Scots would
regard as either droll or improper.
That is the quote Henderson used to post so often.
Note that I've starred the start of a new sentence where Burchfield quotes,
A.J.Aitkin and says Aitkin's quote is, "Paradoxically".
So Henderson has failed to understand that Burchfield's definitions are
contrary to both Aitkin's and Henderson's own ideas on the subject.
Considering I was a working class Scot before WWII and the term then was
Scots or Scottish it is obvious that Burchfield got it right as to the
definition and to the paradox as quoted by Aitkin.
It could only come from Henderson! He quotes as his authority for his own
wrong usage of the term, "Scotch", the very person who is saying that usage
is wrong and who also quotes Aitkin as getting it wrong. There is no doubt
that Henderson failed to understand the full stop between, "middle-class
preferences", and "'Paradoxically,' ", Was the end of a sentence and the
start of another.
Even more laughable is that Henderson's fellow Scots bashers are just as
poor exponents of their own English language as he is. Thank goodness the
normal English people are very much a cut above these miserable examples of
English nationality.
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
"Harry Merrick" <home...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7oa5ceF...@mid.individual.net...
makes it clear Burchfield finds Aitken has, "Paradoxically", claimed
otherwise.
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
"Eddie the one" <inv...@invalid.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5govh55j5sj6tgv2i...@4ax.com...
Scots or Scottish refers to the people while scotch or Scotch is only
correct for the produce of Scotland.
There are a few exceptions that throw-back to a earlier age. These are
historic names for older Scottish Regiments and such like but these refer to
the regiment while the people in that regiment are Scots or Scottish.
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
Well I see there are English people now attempting to make it too. They sell
a three year old malt for over �30.00.
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
"A. J. Moss" <ajm...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:IMydnUl1i685x7zW...@brightview.co.uk...
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
"soupdragon" <m...@privacy.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CDCCD978...@62.141.42.83...
> Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:aq6XUSkK+
> 9HL...@anywhere.demon.co.uk:
>
>> In message <Xns9CDCA97D3...@62.141.42.83>, soupdragon
>> <m...@privacy.com> writes
>>>>>>pockets has continued to this day with the Barnett Formula.
>>>>>
>>>>>So - we pay 10% of the finances while making up 8% of the
> population.
>>>>>I'm pretty sure that clears up whose pockets are being dipped into
>>>>
>>>> Learn what per capita means.... RH
>>>
>>>You mean you expected Scotland to cough up for the monumental National
>>>Debt England brought to the Union? Quelle surprise! Nothing changes.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nope,
>
> and expected the Scottish tax payer to fund it.
>
>
> the Scottish taxpayer saw their tax bill quadruple, to pay for English
> spendthrift policies. As I said, nothing changes.
>
After the English elect a Tory government at the next election, and the
Scots don't want one, there will be a great outcry and we will cut England
adrift.
The great thing about that is they think they will carry on as the United
Kingdom.
They will not, though.
There were only two equal signatories to the Treaty of Union, these were
Scotland & England, (in point of fact Scotland signed first).
The other country was England who brought in all Ireland as a conquered
countries & Wales as an English Principality. So these two did not sign the
treaty.
So when the Two Acts Of Union are wound up there is no place at the table
for England in Europe nor at such things as NATO, WTO and in the British
Commonwealth. It is a strange fact but most Englanders just assume that
England means the UK of GB & NI.
Just look through the posts in this newsgroup and the number of Englanders
who write such nonsense as, "Where does Scotland get her funding", and who
obviously cannot tell the difference between UK funding and a mythical
English funding. Not even England gets English funding for the funding for
England, as she has no parliament, is directly from UK coffers. There is no
such thing as English only funding and thus no such thing as English only
Westminster matters. So come Englanders, do us a favour, vote Tory at the
next election.
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
"Farmer Giles" <Gi...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:VuqdnV0uU9kr_ILW...@brightview.com...
>
> "Andrew" <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
> news:2009120901295216807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
>> On 2009-12-08 14:40:03 +0000, Robert Henderson
>>
>>> "Most of the �281.9bn RBS has placed under taxpayer protection are
>>> based outside the UK with loans secured against everything from negative
>>> equity properties in Dublin to hedge fund assets in Caribbean tax havens
>>> and container ships docked in ports around the world... In total, �167bn
>>> of assets underwritten by British taxpayers are overseas. Only �114.5bn
>>> are in the UK." Telegraph 8 12 2009"
>>>
>>> The passage above is symptomatic of the Scotch character's innate
>>> childlike irresponsibility and recklessness as expressed in
>>> circumstances where Scotchmen manage to get their hands on someone
>>> else's money , normally English money.
>>>
>>> The Darien fiasco in the 1690s when Scotchland was ruined by the fantasy
>>> dreamed up by the Scotch chancer William Patterson and the criminality
>>> of some of his Scotch associates.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> A little later Louise XV was rash enough to entrust French finances to a
>>> Scotchman by the name of John Law who managed to ruin irredeemably the
>>> French finances and currency.
>>
>> its irredeemably backward finances were screaming toward the buffers. Do
>> try to read a bit of history before you quote it
>>
>>>
>>> By the Act of Union Scotchland began her 300 year history of living off
>>> English money with the Act stipulating that Scotland should pay per
>>
>> So - we pay 10% of the finances while making up 8% of the population. I'm
>> pretty sure that clears up whose pockets are being dipped into
>
> a lot of trouble reading what's in front of you.
> What bit of 'per capita' don't you understand?
>
The bit that says the Scots pay more into the UK per capita is quite clear.
Farmer Giles
"Robert Peffers" <peff...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:WvGdncLT-8Uksb_W...@bt.com...
Which bit?
Robert Peffers
That Scotland, on a per capita basis, pays in more per year to the UK than
she gets out.
Do you not understand English?
--
Auld Bob
Robert Peffers
>
> "Robert Peffers" <peff...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:WvGdncLT-8Uksb_W...@bt.com...
>>
>> "Farmer Giles" <Gi...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:VuqdnV0uU9kr_ILW...@brightview.com...
>>>
>>> "Andrew" <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
>>> news:2009120901295216807-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
>>>> On 2009-12-08 14:40:03 +0000, Robert Henderson
>>>> <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> said:
>>>>
>>> For a chap who advises others 'to read a bit of history', you seem to
>>> have a lot of trouble reading what's in front of you.
>>> What bit of 'per capita' don't you understand?
>>>
>> The bit that says the Scots pay more into the UK per capita is quite
>> clear.
>
> Which bit?
The first thing to remember is that the Westminster Government classes the
revenues from the North Sea as from, "Extra-Regio Territories", and not
Scottish.
However, the truth is up to 98% of the Oilfield revenues are in Scottish
waters. As theses are policed by Grampian Police and the support
Infrastructure is at the
expense of the NE Scottish Ratepayers and Council Tax payers. There is NO
financial support from Westminster. Yet North Sea Revenues are EXCLUDED
from the allocation of revenues received from Scotland.
In effect the UK government has made up a new country named, "Extra Regio
Territories", to hide the oil revenues from the Scottish income account. So
any calculation
must add these revenues as Scottish for no such country as,
"Extra-Regio-Territories", exists, outside, or inside, The United Kingdom.
.
Then there is the fact that when the Scottish Parliament started up the UK
Government annexed 6000 square miles of Scottish Waters rich in Oil, Gas and
Fish
and transferred them to English jurisdiction. The international legal
allocation of borders between neighbouring countries dictates that these
waters are Scottish
not English. These revenues also belong to Scotland.
Then we must take the allocated per capita share of the Scottish operations
proportion of the Corporation and other taxes paid by the International Oil
Companies based in London
whose taxes are credited to the London account and return them back to the
credit of Scotland.
There is also the Scottish allocated share of, "The Gross Operating Surplus
And Crown Estates Income".
These seem to be understated for the Scottish North Sea Tax revenues, but
with the solid wall of obfuscation by HM Treasury under this heading it is
difficult to get the real figures.
However, the U.K. Government use the figure of 8.6% (Red Book 2004) to
express the percentage of Scottish Population to the U.K, population as a
whole, so just take that as the figure.
Now for the next set of myths. The Scots pay their fair share of the
following tax take by the UK Treasury but the published figures are only
given for the UK as a
whole so the per capita share must be added to the Scottish tax take
figures. -
VAT; Hydrocarbon Oils; Tobacco Duty; Alcohol Duty; Betting & Gaming;
Air Passenger Duty; Insurance Premium Tax; Landfill Tax; Climate Change
Levy;
Aggregates Levy; Income Tax; National Insurance contributions;
Non-North Sea Corporation Taxes; Capital Gains Tax; Inheritance Tax;
Stamp Duty; Vehicle Excise Duty; Business Rates; Council Taxes; Other Tax &
Royalties;
Interest & Dividends; Gross operating surplus and Crown Estate Rents;
Other revenues and Accounting Adjustments.
So by taking the Scottish share of all these UK incomes we get to the real
way the figures should be worked out.
Now it must also be remembered that the Englanders on these groups always
seem to make the grave error of confusing UK figures with those for England
while conveniently forgetting Scotland's share is part of the total figures
they quote.
Remember too that you must ALSO MUST EXTRACT THE FIGURES FOR NORTHERN
IRELAND AND WALES.
There are no official government figures for England alone.
You are thus quoting the UK figures and you base your conclusions for
England upon utter rubbish.
Now, Giles, either dispute what I have said here or tell us why you were
unable to figure out where you went wrong and have made stupid claims in
error.
--
Auld Bob
Farmer Giles
Even if that were true - which it isn't - it has nothing to do with the
point raised above - which relates to what was said about the Act of Union.
> Do you not understand English?
> --
Rather better than you, I fancy.
Farmer Giles
I haven't quoted any figures, so God knows what you're ranting about now,
Thickers. Have you forgotten to take your pills again?
> Now, Giles, either dispute what I have said here or tell us why you were
> unable to figure out where you went wrong and have made stupid claims in
> error.
As I told you before, Thickers, there's one fatal flaw in all this rubbish
you keep spouting - in which I'm not remotely interested. There is no such
thing as Scottish oil - it is all UK oil - simple as that, and England and
the English are 80% of the UK.
Robert Peffers
You have been rambling on about England funding this, that and the other but
England funds no one. Not even England.
You are confused as to the entire way that the UK of GB & NI is funded.
The funds you seem to think are English are, in fact, those of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland.
What is more you are so bloody stupid that you rave on about the per capita
income and expenditure and have the sheer stupidity to accuse others of not
understanding the meaning of the phrase. The facts prove to all that the
person who does not understand the concept is you.
Furthermore, as long as you cannot differentiate between England and the UK
you never can understand how the UK is funded.
I would explain it for you again but I'm certain that it is a waste of
time.
The concept is above your head.
--
Auld Bob
.
Robert Peffers
Just as I thought.The whole concept is way beyond you.
You really do make yourself look a real idiot..
>
>
>> Now, Giles, either dispute what I have said here or tell us why you were
>> unable to figure out where you went wrong and have made stupid claims in
>> error.
>
> As I told you before, Thickers, there's one fatal flaw in all this
> rubbish you keep spouting - in which I'm not remotely interested.
Of course ypu are not remotely interested - the entire subject is far too
hard for you to understand.
> There is no such thing as Scottish oil - it is all UK oil - simple as
> that, and England and the English are 80% of the UK.
That was why I asked you if you could read properly.
I suspected that you could not.
You have just proved me correct.
The oil does indeed belong to the UK, which was what was being explained to
you.
Now even if the English were 80% of the UK it makes not a bit of difference
and all your statement proves is that the concept of, "on a per capita
basis", is way above your level of comprehension.
Not only that but it proves your muddled thinking in other matters.
You claim that people who are not born in England can be English. You claim
that those who have coloured skins are not English but then you include them
in your 80% quoted figure. You also ignore the fact that you have again
confused the UK and England not to mention the concept of, "Per capita", has
to be applied to all figures or it is nothing but rubbish.
So if the English were to make up 80% of the UK population then they are
obviously also taking up 80% of the expenditure, "On a per Capita ", basis.
So, sorry and all that, but you have once more proven how bloody stupid you
are.
It is hard to believe but you really are thicker than Henderson.
--
Auld Bob
Robert Henderson
Giles <Gi...@nospam.com> writes
>> Now, Giles, either dispute what I have said here or tell us why you were
>> unable to figure out where you went wrong and have made stupid claims in
>> error.
>
>As I told you before, Thickers, there's one fatal flaw in all this
>rubbish you keep spouting - in which I'm not remotely interested. There
>is no such thing as Scottish oil - it is all UK oil - simple as that,
>and England and the English are 80% of the UK.
At least 45% in English waters in any case.... RH
MCP
"Robert Henderson" <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7dkv5VCN...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> In message <6aSdnfETTYa8Cr_W...@brightview.com>, Farmer Giles
> <Gi...@nospam.com> writes
>>> Now, Giles, either dispute what I have said here or tell us why you were
>>> unable to figure out where you went wrong and have made stupid claims in
>>> error.
>>
>>As I told you before, Thickers, there's one fatal flaw in all this
>>rubbish you keep spouting - in which I'm not remotely interested. There is
>>no such thing as Scottish oil - it is all UK oil - simple as that, and
>>England and the English are 80% of the UK.
>
> At least 45% in English waters in any case.... RH
Henderarse = THICKO!!
GM
wrote:
> In message <6aSdnfETTYa8Cr_WnZ2dnUVZ7qSdn...@brightview.com>, Farmer
> Giles <Gi...@nospam.com> writes
>
> >> Now, Giles, either dispute what I have said here or tell us why you were
> >> unable to figure out where you went wrong and have made stupid claims in
> >> error.
>
> >As I told you before, Thickers, there's one fatal flaw in all this
> >rubbish you keep spouting - in which I'm not remotely interested. There
> >is no such thing as Scottish oil - it is all UK oil - simple as that,
> >and England and the English are 80% of the UK.
>
> At least 45% in English waters in any case.... RH
> --
Hey, Robert. Are you going to give us another run through your 'AA
Atlas plus ruler' justification of your imagined border?
GMc
Robert Henderson
<gf010...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>THICKO!!
You have yourself to the life.... RH
Robert Henderson
<m...@privacy.com> writes
>>>> were unable to figure out where you went wrong and have made stupid
>>>> claims in error.
>>>
>>>As I told you before, Thickers, there's one fatal flaw in all this
>>>rubbish you keep spouting - in which I'm not remotely interested.
>>>There is no such thing as Scottish oil - it is all UK oil - simple as
>>>that, and England and the English are 80% of the UK.
>>
>> At least 45% in English waters in any case.... RH
>
Get out your atlas... RH
A. J. Moss
> "A. J. Moss" wrote:
>> HardySpicer wrote:
>>> It's uncool and out of date.
>>
>> Let that be the epitaph for Scottish, sorry, Scotch nationalism.
>>
>> Scotland was never conquered, but sold its soverignity to Westminster
>> for money. Three hundred years on, the SNP wants it back, for free.
>> Not for its own sake, but just so they can sell it again, this time
>> to the EU.
>
Ok, I'm back.
John Bennett
> Scotland was never conquered, but sold its soverignity to Westminster
> for money. Three hundred years on, the SNP wants it back, for free.
> Not for its own sake, but just so they can sell it again, this time
> to the EU.
In a nutshell SIR,in a nutshell.
Robert Peffers
Not only are you a total numptie about political matters but your geography
and history are on a par with it.
--
Auld Bob
A. J. Moss
> "A. J. Moss" wrote:
>> Robert Peffers wrote:
>>> "A. J. Moss" wrote:
>>>> HardySpicer wrote:
>>>>> It's uncool and out of date.
>>>>
>>>> Let that be the epitaph for Scottish, sorry, Scotch
>>>> nationalism.
>>>>
>>>> Scotland was never conquered, but sold its soverignity
>>>> to Westminster for money. Three hundred years on, the
>>>> SNP wants it back, for free. Not for its own sake, but
>>>> just so they can sell it again, this time to the EU.
>>>
>>> Come back when you actually know what you are talking
>>> about.
>>
>> Ok, I'm back.
>>
>> Scotland was never conquered, but sold its soverignity
>> to Westminster for money. Three hundred years on, the
>> SNP wants it back, for free. Not for its own sake, but
>> just so they can sell it again, this time to the EU.
>
> I'm not even going to dignify that load of trollop with
> a reasoned reply. Not only are you a total numptie about
> political matters but your geography and history are on
> a par with it.
Oh, I see what the problem is.
I've taken on board every specific point you've made, every
observation, every conjecture, every argument and assertion
and proposition and objection, and re-evaluated my position
thereby.
In consideration of your commentary, and in accordance with
everything you've written, my standpoint is now as follows:
Robert Peffers
as you have succeeded in showing just what you are all by yourself.
--
Auld Bob
Nkosi (ama-ecosse)
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 17:34:09 -0000, "Harry Merrick"
>
>
>
>
>
> >> <pa...@omne.uk.net> writes
> >>>> McEwans
> >>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McEwan%27s
>
> >>> And can you provide an authoritative contemporary source which offers
> >>> "Scotch" as a description of the people of Scotland?
>
> >> Burchfield [1] has some interesting things to say on this topic:
>
> >> Scotch. Scots, Scottish. It is not pos-
> >> sible to set down here all the complica-
> >> tions of this somewhat sensitive group
> >> of words. The adjective Scotch, in origin
> >> a contracted variant of Scottish, 'had been
> >> adopted into the northern vernacular
> >> before the end of the 18th c.; it [was] used
> >> regularly by Burns, and subsequently by
> >> Scott' (OED).
>
> >Burns was working class? Therefore he didn't know any better. He probably
> >would have said "done that" instead of "did that" and so forth. Working
> >Classes world wide fail to speak their languages properly. Is that
> >ignorance? No education? Bloody mindedness? Or merely bone idle laziness?
> >You tell me! However, grammatically and correctly, the people of Scotland
> >are termed Scots or Scottish. All the rest are mere obfuscations and
> >rhetoric. Of "course" the famous and much loved whiskey is called
> >"Scotch"! - It always has been so!
>
> It is called scotch whiskey just as a certain type of ale is called
> scotch ale
>
>
>
> >You cite "[1] R W BURCHFIELD (ed.): Fowler's Modern English Usage. 3rd ed,
> >> Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1996. ISBN: 0 19 869136 2." as your source of
> >> information. I note that the source actually is "Fowler's Modern English"
> >> 1996. That in itself shows that the term Scottish or Scots is indeed the
> >> oldest and therefore correct terminoligy.
>
> >It appears that Middle and Upper classes are much more respectfull of
> >tradition and their languages and how they should be spoken.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Scotch Whisky, no "e" that is reserved for the lesser but not
altogether bad brands from Ireland, Canada, USA, South Africa and
Japan.
Nkosi