Blair recognised
Don Aitken
by a Scottish newspaper for "the greatest Scot in history", and picked
up by BBC radio news. William Wallace, boringly, came first. Tony
Blair came 95th, 18 places behind Dolly the sheep.
--
Don Aitken
Pat James
(in message <3cc1e6d6...@news.freeuk.net>):
The cheating little bugger went and stuffed the ballot box, did he? Typical.
Dolly's worth ten of him.
--
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
Someone
Typical.
> Dolly's worth ten of him.
And Dolly is of more use than our Tony!
Stu
wrote:
I am surprised he is on the list. He is not a Scot.
Someone
I wonder how many on the list actually are.
Pat James
(in message <lot4cug9ug82843ue...@4ax.com>):
Hey! None of that, now! No wiggling out of your responsibility! Imagine,
trying to foist Tony Be-Lair off on some poor innocent third party! The very
idea!
Stu
wrote:
>Hey! None of that, now! No wiggling out of your responsibility! Imagine,
>trying to foist Tony Be-Lair off on some poor innocent third party! The very
>idea!
How can he be a Scot if he supports England over Scotland at football.
Simple eh!
Stu
Clive Summerfield
news:lot4cug9ug82843ue...@4ax.com...
By what definition? Anthony Charles Lynton Blair was born on May 6, 1953 in
Edinburgh, Scotland. He attended Fettes College in Edinburgh. The common
perception is that he is a Scot.
--
Cheers
Clive
*** Animal testing is a terrible idea; they get all nervous and give the
wrong answers. ***
Stu
<cli...@batchtarget.com> wrote:
>By what definition? Anthony Charles Lynton Blair was born on May 6, 1953 in
>Edinburgh, Scotland. He attended Fettes College in Edinburgh. The common
>perception is that he is a Scot.
Amongst little englanders maybe. My next door neighbour was born in
India and educated there, he says he is a Scot!!
Stu
a.spencer3
> How can he be a Scot if he supports England over Scotland at football.
> Simple eh!
Just choosing the better team ...
Surreyman
Allan Connochie
"Clive Summerfield" <cli...@batchtarget.com> wrote in message
news:0Eyw8.3869$3n.30...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> "Stu" <skin...@nospamthanks.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:lot4cug9ug82843ue...@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 20 Apr 2002 22:27:31 GMT, don-a...@freeuk.com (Don Aitken)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >I can't resist the urge to let people know about a poll just published
> > >by a Scottish newspaper for "the greatest Scot in history", and picked
> > >up by BBC radio news. William Wallace, boringly, came first. Tony
> > >Blair came 95th, 18 places behind Dolly the sheep.
> >
> > I am surprised he is on the list. He is not a Scot.
>
> By what definition? Anthony Charles Lynton Blair was born on May 6, 1953
in
> Edinburgh, Scotland. He attended Fettes College in Edinburgh. The common
> perception is that he is a Scot.
He would certainly fall into the category of Scot if he wanted. However his
father was English born [though brought up in Glasgow] and Blair went to
school in Durham. Yes he later went to Fettes too, but he obviously seems
to regard himself as more English with Scottish connections. Of course the
Leader of the Opposition is part Scottish too and Kennedy of the Lib Dems is
a full blooded one. We probably have to take blame/part blame for them all.
Allan
William Black
Which one?
Wallace (who may have been Welsh) or Blair (who was born and educated there)
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
Stu
<black_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Stu <skin...@nospamthanks.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:lot4cug9ug82843ue...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2002 22:27:31 GMT, don-a...@freeuk.com (Don Aitken)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I can't resist the urge to let people know about a poll just published
>> >by a Scottish newspaper for "the greatest Scot in history", and picked
>> >up by BBC radio news. William Wallace, boringly, came first. Tony
>> >Blair came 95th, 18 places behind Dolly the sheep.
>>
>> I am surprised he is on the list. He is not a Scot.
>
>Which one?
>
>Wallace (who may have been Welsh) or Blair (who was born and educated there)
Blair - why dont we use that old nutter Tebbits view of nationality.
What team are you going to support?
Stu
Andrew Chaplin
> He would certainly fall into the category of Scot if he wanted. However his
> father was English born [though brought up in Glasgow] and Blair went to
> school in Durham. Yes he later went to Fettes too, but he obviously seems
> to regard himself as more English with Scottish connections. Of course the
> Leader of the Opposition is part Scottish too and Kennedy of the Lib Dems is
> a full blooded one. We probably have to take blame/part blame for them all.
Yeesh! It's almost enough to make one want to see life breathed into
the corpse of Andrew Bonar Law. :^)
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger."
out, and change "home" to "rogers".)
Stu
<abch...@rogers.com> wrote:
>Yeesh! It's almost enough to make one want to see life breathed into
>the corpse of Andrew Bonar Law. :^)
Nah he was a Canuk Tory!!!
Stu
William Black
Yorkshire, but I certainly don't want another bunch of crooks in suits
pretending to represent me and earning £150,000 a year each for the
privilege.
I vote for an MEP, an MP and a county and a town and a parish councillor
already.
The first three are just about tolerable, the other two are at least
accessible but some greedy crook in a posh flat in York collecting tax cash
for chasing tarts in Leeds and eating expensive meals in Harrogate would be
just a step too far.
Regional assemblies seem to be designed for politicians who are too stupid
for Brussels, not slick enough for Westminster and too corrupt for local
government.
And yes I do include the current lots in Cardiff and Edinburgh in that.
Andrew Chaplin
AHEM! That's "Canuck".
Stu
<abch...@rogers.com> wrote:
>Stu wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 21 Apr 2002 17:28:09 GMT, Andrew Chaplin
>> <abch...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Yeesh! It's almost enough to make one want to see life breathed into
>> >the corpse of Andrew Bonar Law. :^)
>>
>> Nah he was a Canuk Tory!!!
>
>AHEM! That's "Canuck".
So it is. Now why was Canuck not in the spellchecker ;-)
Stu
Stu
<black_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Stu <skin...@nospamthanks.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:8as5cu0cjam1isinh...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 21 Apr 2002 13:52:50 +0000 (UTC), "William Black"
>> <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Which one?
>> >
>> >Wallace (who may have been Welsh) or Blair (who was born and educated
>there)
>>
>> Blair - why dont we use that old nutter Tebbits view of nationality.
>> What team are you going to support?
>
>Yorkshire, but I certainly don't want another bunch of crooks in suits
>pretending to represent me and earning £150,000 a year each for the
>privilege.
>
>I vote for an MEP, an MP and a county and a town and a parish councillor
>already.
>
>The first three are just about tolerable, the other two are at least
>accessible but some greedy crook in a posh flat in York collecting tax cash
>for chasing tarts in Leeds and eating expensive meals in Harrogate would be
>just a step too far.
>
>Regional assemblies seem to be designed for politicians who are too stupid
>for Brussels, not slick enough for Westminster and too corrupt for local
>government.
>
>And yes I do include the current lots in Cardiff and Edinburgh in that.
What was that all about?
Oh and BTW the Parliament in Scotland and Assembly in Wales are not
for you, so don't you worry about them.
Cheers
William Black
> What was that all about?
>
> Oh and BTW the Parliament in Scotland and Assembly in Wales are not
> for you, so don't you worry about them.
I know that, I just get to pay for them...
Allan Connochie
"William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a9v975$np2$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
>
> Stu <skin...@nospamthanks.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:sf66cus7pvdqnsoj7...@4ax.com...
>
> > What was that all about?
> >
> > Oh and BTW the Parliament in Scotland and Assembly in Wales are not
> > for you, so don't you worry about them.
>
> I know that, I just get to pay for them...
Do you?
Allan
Stu
<black_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Stu <skin...@nospamthanks.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:sf66cus7pvdqnsoj7...@4ax.com...
>
>> What was that all about?
>>
>> Oh and BTW the Parliament in Scotland and Assembly in Wales are not
>> for you, so don't you worry about them.
>
>I know that, I just get to pay for them...
Do you? Why don't you back it up with some facts.
Stu
Clive Summerfield
Hi Stu,
According to the Annual Report of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body
for 2000, initial funds were put in place by the Westminister Parliament.
This is hardly surprising given that the Scottish Parliament had not been
set up when funds were allocated. The initial budget for the Parliament was
£63.9 million, of which £20 million was not spent. This £20 million was
carried forward and reported in the 2001 annual report. So for the first 2
years of the Scottish Parliament, an element of the budget came from central
funds, and while you could not track these back to specific individuals, it
is extremely likely that some of the money raise from taxation of people in
England will have ended up supporting the funding of the Scottish
Parliament. The 2002 annual report wont be available for a while yet, but
with budgets typically being set at £65 - £70 million for the first 2 years,
it would be safe to assume a similar order of magnitude of spend for 2002.
Now the population of Scotland is about 5.1million, which is makes the
budget cost of the SP about £13 per person if it is financed purely in
Scotland.
In fact, the Scotland Act 1998 states that in matters of finance...
A fund of mondey, the Scottish Consolidated Fund, is provided by Westminster
to finance the Parliament and provide its budget.
Scottish Ministers can borrow money from Westminster up to £500 million. It
is not possible to borrow from other sources.
Auditied accounts of Scottish finances must be produced.
Parliament can cary the basic rate of Income Tax in Scotland by plus or
minus 3%
Where tax is raised, the Inland Revenue will pay the sums gathered into the
Scottish Consolidated Fund. A reduction of tax will result in the fund being
reduced in accordance with the sums lost to the Exchequer.
So basically, everyone is paying for the Scottish Parliament, not just the
Scottish.
Clive Summerfield
news:his7cukbk8rpvn4tk...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 08:31:59 GMT, "Clive Summerfield"
> <cli...@batchtarget.com> wrote:
>
> snip <why everyone pays for Scottish parliament>
>
>
> Worth every penny to us English in entertainment value alone to see
> what damn silly idea they come up with next.
The worry is that other regions will think it a good idea too. Living as I
do in Barnsley, I'm not sure I'd want to see a Yorkshire Assembley, given
the "qualities" of local politicians. Now, if I lived elsewhere, I might
find the Peoples Republic of South Yorkshire quite entertaining, but it's
not a place I'd like to live.
Stu
>On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 08:31:59 GMT, "Clive Summerfield"
><cli...@batchtarget.com> wrote:
>
>snip <why everyone pays for Scottish parliament>
>
>
>Worth every penny to us English in entertainment value alone to see
>what damn silly idea they come up with next.
Some of them you are copying or jealous of.
Ban on Hunting with Dogs
Free care for the elderly.
Stu
Stu
<cli...@batchtarget.com> wrote:
>The worry is that other regions will think it a good idea too. Living as I
>do in Barnsley, I'm not sure I'd want to see a Yorkshire Assembley, given
>the "qualities" of local politicians. Now, if I lived elsewhere, I might
>find the Peoples Republic of South Yorkshire quite entertaining, but it's
>not a place I'd like to live.
But Clive, the whole point in the Parliament for Scotland is we are a
nation within the union. We are not a region.
Stu
Clive Summerfield
I think you missed the point I was trying to make. The creation of the
Northern Ireland and Welsh Assemblies, and the Scottish Parliament could be
viewed from a nationalistic perspective as devolving powers to the
constituent members of the Union. The flaw in that approach is that England
has no seperate Parliament. A cynic might think that the creation of
assemblies in Scotland and Wales - both Labour dominated - was done partly
to ensure that no matter who controls Westminster, Labour will always have a
say in these areas. And it could be argued that the differences between the
North of England and the South are both economically and culturally as great
as those Between Scotland and England.
Andrew Chaplin
> But Clive, the whole point in the Parliament for Scotland is we are a
> nation within the union. We are not a region.
"Nation" is a pretty spongy construct when it comes to meaning; it's too
mixed up with culture and language. Jurisdictions, -- states, provinces,
areas, regions -- not nations, have territory and boundaries (look at the
Germans, they are in Germany, Switzerland, Austria and the Volgaland --
perhaps France too, when you look at Alsace). If you're not careful you'll
come off sounding like the Parti Québecois, who more than occasionally sound
like bigots.
Stu
<abch...@yourfinger.home.com> wrote:
>"Nation" is a pretty spongy construct when it comes to meaning; it's too
>mixed up with culture and language. Jurisdictions, -- states, provinces,
>areas, regions -- not nations, have territory and boundaries (look at the
>Germans, they are in Germany, Switzerland, Austria and the Volgaland --
>perhaps France too, when you look at Alsace). If you're not careful you'll
>come off sounding like the Parti Québecois, who more than occasionally sound
>like bigots.
The Act of Union !!!
Are you really suggesting that Scotland was not a nation before the
union? And that the union merely made it a region?
Stu
Stu
<cli...@batchtarget.com> wrote:
>I think you missed the point I was trying to make. The creation of the
>Northern Ireland and Welsh Assemblies, and the Scottish Parliament could be
>viewed from a nationalistic perspective as devolving powers to the
>constituent members of the Union. The flaw in that approach is that England
>has no seperate Parliament.
I don't think I missed your point, you were (maybe not directly)
comparing Scotland to a region of England.
> A cynic might think that the creation of
>assemblies in Scotland and Wales - both Labour dominated - was done partly
>to ensure that no matter who controls Westminster, Labour will always have a
>say in these areas.
Considering the Labour party can be rather lukewarm about devolution
at the best of times, then yes I would call it cynical. They also
don't use First Past the Post voting and consequently they "share"
power with the Liberal Democrats.
>And it could be argued that the differences between the
>North of England and the South are both economically and culturally as great
>as those Between Scotland and England.
Indeed, I think that regional assemblies may come to English regions,
similar to those in Germany.
Stu
Andrew Chaplin
Yes, it was not a nation, it was a state. It was, for the purposes of the
Act, a sovereign state before it came into effect. That act took away some
of that sovereignty and placed it in the hands of a different polity, the
U.K. Scotland remains a nation for the purpose of rugby football, the one
that really matters.
William Black
> But Clive, the whole point in the Parliament for Scotland is we are a
> nation within the union. We are not a region.
Nations have armies and independent foreign policies.
All Scotland's got is a crooked assembly and a football team.
I noticed you dropped the 'prove you pay' rubbish but someone beat me to the
proof I'm afraid..
Stu
<abch...@yourfinger.home.com> wrote:
>Yes, it was not a nation, it was a state. It was, for the purposes of the
>Act, a sovereign state before it came into effect. That act took away some
>of that sovereignty and placed it in the hands of a different polity, the
>U.K. Scotland remains a nation for the purpose of rugby football, the one
>that really matters.
Using your example was England a nation at the time of the union?
Stu
<black_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Nations have armies and independent foreign policies.
We have both, but they are covered by the UK parliament.
>All Scotland's got is a crooked assembly and a football team.
We have a parliament not an assembly and you will also need to come up
with facts if you want to call it crooked. It would also be good if
someone couldn't come to your rescue this time.
>I noticed you dropped the 'prove you pay' rubbish but someone beat me to the
>proof I'm afraid..
I doubt very much that you could have come up with an answer judging
by the tone/content of your posts. I have not dropped it, I am still
in the process of replying.
Stu
Stu
<cli...@batchtarget.com> wrote:
>According to the Annual Report of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body
>for 2000, initial funds were put in place by the Westminister Parliament.
>This is hardly surprising given that the Scottish Parliament had not been
>set up when funds were allocated. The initial budget for the Parliament was
>£63.9 million, of which £20 million was not spent. This £20 million was
>carried forward and reported in the 2001 annual report. So for the first 2
>years of the Scottish Parliament, an element of the budget came from central
>funds, and while you could not track these back to specific individuals, it
>is extremely likely that some of the money raise from taxation of people in
>England will have ended up supporting the funding of the Scottish
>Parliament. The 2002 annual report wont be available for a while yet, but
>with budgets typically being set at £65 - £70 million for the first 2 years,
>it would be safe to assume a similar order of magnitude of spend for 2002.
>Now the population of Scotland is about 5.1million, which is makes the
>budget cost of the SP about £13 per person if it is financed purely in
>Scotland.
But surely that money pre-devolution was UK funds which had been
contributed to by Scots as well as other tax payers within the UK. As
you rightly state, a parliament with tax levying powers was hardly
able to pay for itself before it had been created. As no tax levying
powers were available before the Scotland Act then it would have been
difficult to allocate Scottish only generated taxes to its creation.
I would view the creation of the Parliament on the basis of any other
capital expenditure that country has to make. For example, the rail
infrastructure (although is a bit of a dodgy state) in the SE of
England has had enormous amounts of money spent on it, is it only
English taxes paying for this? Of course not.
>So basically, everyone is paying for the Scottish Parliament, not just the
>Scottish.
Indeed, but my reply to William was, judging by his previous comments,
directed at his comment that he, ie English, were paying for it. When
in fact the money allocated to it was generated on a UK basis.
I don't understand why people like William have such an objection to
our devolved parliament. Maybe he wishes the same to happen within
England, but he is not eloquent enough to discuss this, he would much
rather throw little englander comments around.
Thanks for an informative post.
Regards
Stu
Stu
>>Ban on Hunting with Dogs
>>Free care for the elderly.
>>
>>Stu
>
>We wait with interest to see if the first one can be made to stick
>through various appeals to the European courts etc.
Well its law now. The appeals to the European courts will fail as
they will be astonished as anyone else as to why they think their
Human Rights are being abused by not being able to run down foxes and
kill them.
>The second one will bankrupt you in the long run. (If it doesn't
>bankrupt us first.)
So old folk should not be entitled to free care, is that what you are
saying?
Its a good example of why we needed devolved power, we happen to think
that it is an excellent (and yes expensive) piece of legislation. As
you post in a History newsgroup surely you are aware that our old
folks are entitled to a bit of dignity and respect in the twilight of
their lives when you consider what they have sacrificed for us. Or do
you want to just leave it all to market forces?
And don't worry about the cost as it has been allocated out of the
budget already given from Westminster, ie, no extra money was given by
Westminster.
Once again I ask, what is you big beef with Scotland running its own
affairs? Jealousy?
Stu
Andrew Chaplin
> >Some of them you are copying or jealous of.
> >
> >Ban on Hunting with Dogs
> >Free care for the elderly.
> We wait with interest to see if the first one can be made to stick
> through various appeals to the European courts etc.
> The second one will bankrupt you in the long run. (If it doesn't
> bankrupt us first.)
Then try switching them:
Ban on hunting the elderly
Free care for dogs.
Andrew Chaplin
> Using your example was England a nation at the time of the union?
It had a structure parallel to that of Scotland as a state (that contained a
principality) until the Act of Union came into force. At that time it ceased
to exist as a state on its own, it became part and parcel of the unitary
state that was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
My major point is that "nation" and "state" are not interchangeable. I also
differ with Wm. Black about his assertion that "Nations have armies and
independent foreign policies." States have armies, they are made up with
people from the nations over which the state has dominion (and mercenaries,
e.g. the Gurkhas). Foreign policy is properly an affair of state. The
"state" in the British Isles that handles foreign policy and raises forces
on behalf of the nations of Scotland and England is the United Kingdom.
One of the things that REALY gets up my nose as a Canadian is when some
ank -- one of my fellow Americans -- says that "Canada is ruled by the
Queen of England." England no longer has a queen of its own and must share
its monarch with Scotland and Northern Ireland as a result of the Act of
Union (and a whole hockey sock full of other reasons, but suffice it to
say...).
Yes, it's a legalistic explanation, but I do not believe it relys
inordinately on connotative over denotative meanings.
T. Fink
<black_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Nations have armies and independent foreign policies.
>
Nope, the German nation exists for more than 1000 years (we could
discuss now when it started but it would be OT here) while the German
state with a single army and a single foreign policy is just 131 years
old.
CU
Torsten
--
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Free Tibet!!!
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Allan Connochie
"Clive Summerfield" <cli...@batchtarget.com> wrote in message
news:IGXw8.5267$t95.42...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> "Stu" <skin...@nospamthanks.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:6tf8cu8sa9o6seoki...@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 12:51:28 GMT, "Clive Summerfield"
> > <cli...@batchtarget.com> wrote:
> >
> > >The worry is that other regions will think it a good idea too. Living
as
> I
> > >do in Barnsley, I'm not sure I'd want to see a Yorkshire Assembley,
given
> > >the "qualities" of local politicians. Now, if I lived elsewhere, I
might
> > >find the Peoples Republic of South Yorkshire quite entertaining, but
it's
> > >not a place I'd like to live.
> >
> > But Clive, the whole point in the Parliament for Scotland is we are a
> > nation within the union. We are not a region.
> >
>
> I think you missed the point I was trying to make. The creation of the
> Northern Ireland and Welsh Assemblies, and the Scottish Parliament could
be
> viewed from a nationalistic perspective as devolving powers to the
> constituent members of the Union. The flaw in that approach is that
England
> has no seperate Parliament.
Which is a matter for the English of course! Perhaps a drive for such a
parliament will arise. I shouldn't think that many, if any, Scots would
object to it.
A cynic might think that the creation of
> assemblies in Scotland and Wales - both Labour dominated - was done partly
> to ensure that no matter who controls Westminster, Labour will always have
a
> say in these areas.
Labour's move towards devolution probably had more to do with securing the
Union than anything else. It could be argued that if the union was broken
up then the Conservative Party's strength in the rump UK could be
strengthened. I think though that the will of the Scottish people was more
important than any political party's motives.
And it could be argued that the differences between
the
> North of England and the South are both economically and culturally as
great
> as those Between Scotland and England.
No-one is really denying that. There are also great differences within
Scotland itself.
Allan
Allan Connochie
"Andrew Chaplin" <abch...@yourfinger.home.com> wrote in message
news:4167d2$d161...@parl5.parl.gc.ca...
> "Stu" <skin...@nospamthanks.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:6tf8cu8sa9o6seoki...@4ax.com...
>
> > But Clive, the whole point in the Parliament for Scotland is we are a
> > nation within the union. We are not a region.
>
> "Nation" is a pretty spongy construct when it comes to meaning; it's too
> mixed up with culture and language. Jurisdictions, -- states, provinces,
> areas, regions -- not nations, have territory and boundaries (look at the
> Germans, they are in Germany, Switzerland, Austria and the Volgaland --
> perhaps France too, when you look at Alsace). If you're not careful you'll
> come off sounding like the Parti Québecois, who more than occasionally
sound
> like bigots.
Here are some definitions given in my Collins Pocket Dictionary for the word
"nation"
1. a community of people with a territory, economic life, language etc in
common [Scotland qualifies on all of these points though English aside we
have two of our own languages]
2. a country [Scotland like England was certainly once a country if you
take country as being a nation state; and still is a country if you use the
definition the territory of a people or nation]
3. a people or tribe [are you going to suggest that there isn't a Scottish
people?]
Surely the main thing that makes a nation a nation is if the nation
recognises itself as that? Surely there is no bigotry in having a sense of
nationhood and wishing a greater level of self determination for that
nation? Surely the bigotry is in trying to deny the nationhood of another?
Allan
Stu
<abch...@yourfinger.home.com> wrote:
>It had a structure parallel to that of Scotland as a state (that contained a
>principality) until the Act of Union came into force. At that time it ceased
>to exist as a state on its own, it became part and parcel of the unitary
>state that was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
>
>My major point is that "nation" and "state" are not interchangeable. I also
>differ with Wm. Black about his assertion that "Nations have armies and
>independent foreign policies." States have armies, they are made up with
>people from the nations over which the state has dominion (and mercenaries,
>e.g. the Gurkhas). Foreign policy is properly an affair of state. The
>"state" in the British Isles that handles foreign policy and raises forces
>on behalf of the nations of Scotland and England is the United Kingdom.
>
>One of the things that REALY gets up my nose as a Canadian is when some
>ank -- one of my fellow Americans -- says that "Canada is ruled by the
>Queen of England." England no longer has a queen of its own and must share
>its monarch with Scotland and Northern Ireland as a result of the Act of
>Union (and a whole hockey sock full of other reasons, but suffice it to
>say...).
>
>Yes, it's a legalistic explanation, but I do not believe it relys
>inordinately on connotative over denotative meanings.
Andrew, I fail to see the point of your post other than within the
realms legal semantics.
If you ask a Scot if Scotland is a nation they will say yes. Surely
that is all that matters.
Stu
Clive Summerfield
>
> I would view the creation of the Parliament on the basis of any other
> capital expenditure that country has to make. For example, the rail
> infrastructure (although is a bit of a dodgy state) in the SE of
> England has had enormous amounts of money spent on it, is it only
> English taxes paying for this? Of course not.
>
I could counter that argument by pointing out that in other areas, Scotland
receives more funding than would be expected given the relative populations.
For example, in 2000-2001, with just 9% of the UK population, Scotland
received 12% of total UK funding council resources for research and 12% of
EU research resources. The per capita income from research grants and
contracts is £39 in Scotland, compared with £28 for England, £17 for Wales
and £15 for Northern Ireland. Yet Scottish industry invested only 0.5% of
national GDP on research and development, half that of the UK as a whole and
a thrid of the OECD average.
Given the sheer volume of figures to plough through, it is not surprising
that both sides of the debate will claim the economic high ground. If I had
a month to spare, I'd probably have a go at analysing the figures to get an
clear picture of where the balance of funding lies.
>
> I don't understand why people like William have such an objection to
> our devolved parliament. Maybe he wishes the same to happen within
> England, but he is not eloquent enough to discuss this, he would much
> rather throw little englander comments around.
>
I think you've hit the nail on the head. Personally, I don't have a problem
with the Scottish Parliament, or the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies.
My concern is with the absence of a corresponding body for England which
creates an imbalance between the constituents of the United Kingdom.
Devolving powers should have been done either as a comprehensive exercise or
not at all. The situation we currently have is the result of what is now
becoming typical Labour lack of forethought.
> Thanks for an informative post.
>
No problem. As a bit of a Jacobite, I try to keep an eye on matters North of
the Border.
Stu
<cli...@batchtarget.com> wrote:
>I could counter that argument by pointing out that in other areas, Scotland
>receives more funding than would be expected given the relative populations.
But the Barnet formula is not based solely on population. The same
applies to areas of England. For example it would not exactly be fair
to allocate NHS funding to the Western Isles based on population, when
the population is so widely dispersed.
>> I don't understand why people like William have such an objection to
>> our devolved parliament. Maybe he wishes the same to happen within
>> England, but he is not eloquent enough to discuss this, he would much
>> rather throw little englander comments around.
>>
>
>I think you've hit the nail on the head. Personally, I don't have a problem
>with the Scottish Parliament, or the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies.
>My concern is with the absence of a corresponding body for England which
>creates an imbalance between the constituents of the United Kingdom.
>Devolving powers should have been done either as a comprehensive exercise or
>not at all. The situation we currently have is the result of what is now
>becoming typical Labour lack of forethought.
>
But there was no will from the English people for assemblies at the
time was there. A cynic would suggest that the Westminster Parliament
is all but an English Parliament, but I am not a cynic ;-0
>No problem. As a bit of a Jacobite, I try to keep an eye on matters North of
>the Border.
Jacobites were not exclusively Scottish, nor well regarded by a large
proportion of the population. ;-)
Stu
Allan Connochie
> "Dave" <da...@knowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:ghp8cusiikbn6a6ob...@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 17:51:32 +0100, Stu
> > <skin...@nospamthanks.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > >Some of them you are copying or jealous of.
> > >
> > >Ban on Hunting with Dogs
> > >Free care for the elderly.
>
> > We wait with interest to see if the first one can be made to stick
> > through various appeals to the European courts etc.
> > The second one will bankrupt you in the long run. (If it doesn't
> > bankrupt us first.)
>
> Then try switching them:
> Ban on hunting the elderly
> Free care for dogs.
Isn't that a bit catist?
Allan
Allan Connochie
That is true we get figures claiming Scotland is a subsidy junkie right
through to figures claiming we heavily subsidise England etc. However there
is a move towards a feeling that the revenue raised in Scotland should be
spent in Scotland. This was even backed by the Scotsman newspaper at the
last election. At least that would stop all the subsidy arguments. Each
way is a winner though. If Scotland is in the black then we can afford this
measure. If Scotland is in the red then we can't afford not to take this
measure as potentially one of the richest countries around must be being
grossly mismanaged by Westminster.
>
> >
> > I don't understand why people like William have such an objection to
> > our devolved parliament. Maybe he wishes the same to happen within
> > England, but he is not eloquent enough to discuss this, he would much
> > rather throw little englander comments around.
> >
>
> I think you've hit the nail on the head. Personally, I don't have a
problem
> with the Scottish Parliament, or the Welsh and Northern Ireland
Assemblies.
> My concern is with the absence of a corresponding body for England which
> creates an imbalance between the constituents of the United Kingdom.
> Devolving powers should have been done either as a comprehensive exercise
or
> not at all. The situation we currently have is the result of what is now
> becoming typical Labour lack of forethought.
That is true. But there is not [at the moment] any great clamour throughout
the breadth of England for devolution. Why should the rest be denied
because of English disinterest in the matter? There are anomolies though,
and a 'potential' democratic deficit within England as Scottish MPs can
still vote on matters not concerning Scotland. The job is obviously only
half done.
Allan
a.spencer3
Allan Connochie <co...@conno.greatxscape.net> wrote in message
news:aa1rni$j77$2...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> >
> Here are some definitions given in my Collins Pocket Dictionary for the
word
> "nation"
> 1. a community of people with a territory, economic life, language etc in
> common [Scotland qualifies on all of these points though English aside
we
> have two of our own languages]
>
>
Scottish
> people?]
>
>
example, I believe certain American Indian tribal groups were referred to as
nations.
'State' is no good - See USA again!
Definitely needs at least a doiuble-barrelled term - 'sovereign xxxxxxx' of
some sort?
Just a bit of semantics!
Surreyman
a.spencer3
>
> So old folk should not be entitled to free care, is that what you are
> saying?
>
> Its a good example of why we needed devolved power, we happen to think
> that it is an excellent (and yes expensive) piece of legislation. As
> you post in a History newsgroup surely you are aware that our old
> folks are entitled to a bit of dignity and respect in the twilight of
> their lives when you consider what they have sacrificed for us. Or do
> you want to just leave it all to market forces?
>
>
(And I'm not that old - I'd still be contributing!).
Surreyman
Andrew Chaplin
> Andrew, I fail to see the point of your post other than within the
> realms legal semantics.
The semantics become very important when legislation is enacted to "protect
culture," just ask any allophone in Québec, Franco-Ontarien,
Franco-Manitobain, Fransaskois or Jacky-tar.
> If you ask a Scot if Scotland is a nation they will say yes. Surely
> that is all that matters.
No, that is not all that matters. Careful distinction must be drawn between
"Scotland" the land and "Scotland" the people. You have to answer questions
such as "what is a Scot?" You also have to get agreement on that both inside
and outside the set of those who say "I am Scots."
Canadians have been 'round this buoy, and would like to spare others the
trip.
William Black
You're getting smug and patronising.
If you patronise me again I shall be displeased.
William Black
T. Fink <A_T_...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:h1s8cu0p5a2oaejtg...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 17:58:01 +0000 (UTC), "William Black"
> <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Nations have armies and independent foreign policies.
> >
>
> Nope, the German nation exists for more than 1000 years (we could
> discuss now when it started but it would be OT here) while the German
> state with a single army and a single foreign policy is just 131 years
> old.
And it's had to be split up during that time as well, and the Dutch won't
play either...
Germany as a nation is the product of the imagination of Otto Bismarck.
And to an extent we're still paying for that particular brain wave.
Stu
>On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 20:52:51 +0100, Stu
><skin...@nospamthanks.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 20:39:10 +0100, Dave <da...@knowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Ban on Hunting with Dogs
>>>>Free care for the elderly.
>>>>
>>>>Stu
>>>
>>>We wait with interest to see if the first one can be made to stick
>>>through various appeals to the European courts etc.
>>
>Well, their right to follow their interests and culture are being
>eroded because some people don't agree with them, although not being
>in any way affected themselves. I don't remember there being anything
>in the Human Rights act about the rights of animals taking precedence
>over the rights of Humans. You'll be wanting to ban fishing next.
>>
Your argument is flawed regarding Fox Hunting (please note that I have
no wish to start a thread on this).
I live in a rural area and have had many interesting evenings
discussing this issue with people who love hunts, not once did I hear
their human rights were being abused as they knew this would be
laughable. "My human rights are being abused because I can't chase a
fox down and then rip it to shreds" Sounds rather bizarre doesn't it.
The pro hunt lobby made an issue out of this on the basis of pest
control, then they backtracked and said it wasn't actually that
efficient at pest control and it was a sporting, social occasion. When
they were asked why they couldn't do drag hunting instead, they
bumbled and talked about tradition.
>>
>No, I'm saying that paying for their long term care will bankrupt you,
>in the long run as the population continues to age. Unless you
>substantially increase taxation, of course (and I mean substantially).
>When that begins to bite and those paying most tax decide to move
>south of the border, you will find yourself coming cap in hand to
>England to bale you out, again.
I happen to think that one of the criteria a country should judge its
civilisation on is the way they treat their old folks. Successive
govt's in this country have treated them with utter contempt, but it
has become particularity bad in the last 20yrs. Removing the index
linking of pensions was callous act and resulted in widespread poverty
amongst the old. It was compounded later by means testing and the
selling of assets to pay for their care when they have become to frail
to care for themselves. Now I dont know what your views on the NHS
and National Insurance are, but don't you think a person who started
paying NI from the start and led a comparatively healthy life
throughout his/her working life is entitled to some of that back in
the form of care when they become too infirm?
Regarding your jibe about the cost, our devolved govt are under no
illusions about the cost of this, but they have had enormous support
for it. Our Parliament has the ability to raise or lower income tax
by 3p in the pound. Should the cost become too erroneous they will
have alternative avenues for generating the funds.
I have no doubt some people would leave should their tax burden become
too big for their greedy minds, equally I have heard of English people
moving north due to our more enlightened attitude towards them, should
we charge you, an English tax payer for this?
I sincerely hope you have made provisions for your old age, if not
then I am sure you could move north, if you could bear to live amongst
us subsidy junkies that is.
Regards
Stu
Stu
<a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Good God, I'm agreeing with you wholeheartedly for a change!
>(And I'm not that old - I'd still be contributing!).
>
>Surreyman
>
Have a whisky and put your feet up, you'll get back to normal. ;-)
Stu
Stu
<black_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>You're getting smug and patronising.
>
>If you patronise me again I shall be displeased.
Well come back with some data other than saying Scotland sponge off
you. You sound like a Ken Livingston advert.
Stu
T. Fink
<black_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Germany as a nation is the product of the imagination of Otto Bismarck.
>
You are mixing up again nation and state. The German state was created
by Bismarck (although German people already had demanded a unified
German state during the liberal 1848 revolution), but a German nation
is in existance since the first millienium (there are different points
of view when it started, so go back to Germanic times while I'd say
around 800 after the High-German phonetic shift). According to your
definition there is also no Italian nation for example (there state
started in the 1860s IIRC).
Allan Connochie
"a.spencer3" <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:MP8x8.32805$ML.48...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Don't see it myself as I feel that Scotland fits each one of these
definitions. No-one has really given any clear reason why Scotland [and
supposedly England too] is not a nation. The main reason for being one is
of course if the nation recognises itself as that.....and quite clearly the
Scottish nation does.
Allan
>
> Surreyman
>
>
Stu
>Bizarre or not, it's still an infringement of their traditional
>rights. Good job it's not some ethnic tradition or they would never
>get away with banning it.
Traditional rights to kill foxes, is a right a country in the 21st C
doesn't need.
>(I personally couldn't give a toss either way about hunting, but it
>seems a shame to stop people doing something which affects no-one
>else, mainly for reasons of class envy or to feel morally superior)
Haha - my friend in my local will be delighted to find out they are in
the upper classes.
>Aren't they getting a pension then?
72.50 pound a week - yippee I bet they are painting the town red every
night.
>And free prescriptions etc etc.
Whats the etc etc? 50quid a year for heating, subsidised bus travel.
Christ we really overindulge our OAP's over here dont we.
>Besides, anyone who can't afford care is given it free anyway, even in
>England. What we are talking about is people who have the money but
>would rather pass it on to their children than spend it on themselves.
>They then expect the taxpayer to pay for them instead. Doesn't seem
>very fair to me regardless of how long someone has been paying N.I.
Why is it regardless. The NHS is for all not just the poor.
>I'm not proud. I'll be moving North on my 65th birthday to get some of
>my subsidies back.
Not sure of your age so you might not be eligible, you see we might be
independent by then. The union irrevocably damaged by little
englanders like you.
Stu
Stu
<abch...@yourfinger.home.com> wrote:
>The semantics become very important when legislation is enacted to "protect
>culture," just ask any allophone in Québec, Franco-Ontarien,
>Franco-Manitobain, Fransaskois or Jacky-tar.
>No, that is not all that matters. Careful distinction must be drawn between
>"Scotland" the land and "Scotland" the people. You have to answer questions
>such as "what is a Scot?" You also have to get agreement on that both inside
>and outside the set of those who say "I am Scots."
>
>Canadians have been 'round this buoy, and would like to spare others the
>trip.
And Scotland is not Canada, maybe Canadians have issues with calling
their country a nation. Probably, when you see them clinging onto the
monarchy, but in Scotland we have never lost that feeling of
nationhood, even when some of us sold the nation in 1707.
Stu
Peter J Lusby
> What we are talking about is people who have the money but
> >would rather pass it on to their children than spend it on themselves.
Are you sure this is the reason? Are you completely certain that these
people are not just afraid of depleting their capital, from which they
derive the income which allows them to maintain a decent standard of living
despite receiving only a pittance from the government in return for the
tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of pounds they have paid into the
system over the course of a lifetime?
Regards
Peter
--
"A dust whom England bore, shaped, made aware" - Rupert Brooke - "The
Soldier"
Peter J Lusby
San Diego, California, USA
www.lusby.org
Allan Connochie
> "Stu" <skin...@nospamthanks.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:aft8cugt48sddpail...@4ax.com...
>
> > Andrew, I fail to see the point of your post other than within the
> > realms legal semantics.
>
> The semantics become very important when legislation is enacted to
"protect
> culture," just ask any allophone in Québec, Franco-Ontarien,
> Franco-Manitobain, Fransaskois or Jacky-tar.
>
> > If you ask a Scot if Scotland is a nation they will say yes. Surely
> > that is all that matters.
>
> No, that is not all that matters. Careful distinction must be drawn
between
> "Scotland" the land and "Scotland" the people. You have to answer
questions
> such as "what is a Scot?" You also have to get agreement on that both
inside
> and outside the set of those who say "I am Scots."
Quite frankly this could pertain to any country or nation. Are you saying
that there is no such thing as a nation? I don't know what problems [if
any] Canadians have with their sense of nationhood but certainly the 'vast'
majority of Scots regard themselves as being part of the Scottish nation.
There is also a dual sense of Britishness amongst many of these people
though the degree of Britishness felt has reduced over the last few decades.
I think if you stood in a congregation of Scots and tried to explain to them
why they weren't part of a nation they would simply look at you with bemused
and amused expressions.
Allan
Andrew Chaplin
> Quite frankly this could pertain to any country or nation. Are you saying
> that there is no such thing as a nation? I don't know what problems [if
> any] Canadians have with their sense of nationhood but certainly the 'vast'
> majority of Scots regard themselves as being part of the Scottish nation.
> There is also a dual sense of Britishness amongst many of these people
> though the degree of Britishness felt has reduced over the last few decades.
> I think if you stood in a congregation of Scots and tried to explain to them
> why they weren't part of a nation they would simply look at you with bemused
> and amused expressions.
What do you mean by "nation?" Is there a "Greater Scotland?" What of
those millions of your distant cousins who can still matriculate arms
through Lord Lyon; are they Scots, even if they are born in London or
Tennessee or Nova Scotia, or on a Saulteaux reservation in northern
Manitoba? AIUI, the emigrants of Scotland and their descendants in
England alone vastly outnumber the population of Scotland.
Canada, by the way, is not a nation, it is a federated constitutional
monarchy -- an absentee kingdom built, in the main, by Scots. There is
a Canadian population and there are about 30 million Canadian
citizens, but no single Canadian nation.
The notion of "nations" is unsatisfactory and unhelpful in the conduct
of affairs between states. Nationalism is nearly as poisonous as
religion and has accounted for nearly as many dead in the last quarter
millennium.
Stu
<abch...@rogers.com> wrote:
>What do you mean by "nation?" Is there a "Greater Scotland?" What of
>those millions of your distant cousins who can still matriculate arms
>through Lord Lyon; are they Scots, even if they are born in London or
>Tennessee or Nova Scotia, or on a Saulteaux reservation in northern
>Manitoba? AIUI, the emigrants of Scotland and their descendants in
>England alone vastly outnumber the population of Scotland.
So what, being Scottish doesn't mean you have to be born and raised
here. My father in law was born in London and came to Scotland 36yrs
ago. He calls himself a Scot, I have no reason to dispute it.
The Scottish Diaspora can call themselves whatever they want, we are
talking about what the people of Scotland feel and as far as I am
concerned they feel part of a nation.
>Canada, by the way, is not a nation, it is a federated constitutional
>monarchy -- an absentee kingdom built, in the main, by Scots. There is
>a Canadian population and there are about 30 million Canadian
>citizens, but no single Canadian nation.
Please tell me you are a lawyer and make a living out of being
pedantic.
>The notion of "nations" is unsatisfactory and unhelpful in the conduct
>of affairs between states. Nationalism is nearly as poisonous as
>religion and has accounted for nearly as many dead in the last quarter
>millennium.
See that big building in New York, it hosts an organisation called the
UN - what does the N stand for?
The name "United Nations", coined by United States President Franklin
D. Roosevelt, was first used in the "Declaration by United Nations" of
1 January 1942, during the Second World War, when representatives of
26 nations pledged their Governments to continue fighting together
against the Axis Powers
Why are you making such a big deal about this.
Stu
Rabid Bee
Because "a nation" (people or tribe") might be broader and more vague than
"a nation" (common territory, economics, &c.). (In other words, the
Scottish diaspora might be dispersed extensively at great distances from
Scotland the territory). Also, a country or state might actually be a
united territory ruled by a single government yet comprising several
separate "nations" (tribes or people). (Perhaps a good example of this
would be the Austro-Hungarian Empire?).
Hence, for clarity and precision, it would be better to refer to the
"Scotland" defined by a map as a sovereign state (before 1707), state,
region, province, area or country. (Personally, I tend to associate
"country" with sovereign states, but others don't). That part of "Scotland"
as defined by the heart might be called the Scottish nation, but for clarity
perhaps Scottish people, or just Scots, would be better.
It's vital, at least in historical discussions, to be exactly clear exactly
what you mean by a word. To avoid confussion, it's best to use words that
can't be confused.
Cheers, Alex
Rabid Bee
> >
> You are mixing up again nation and state. The German state was created
> by Bismarck (although German people already had demanded a unified
> German state during the liberal 1848 revolution), but a German nation
> is in existance since the first millienium (there are different points
> of view when it started, so go back to Germanic times while I'd say
> around 800 after the High-German phonetic shift). According to your
> definition there is also no Italian nation for example (there state
> started in the 1860s IIRC).
I agree with Torsten on this one. The idea of a common German identity,
based on language, customs and shared ancestory (and common government, in
the shape of the Holy Roman Empire, for much of "Germany") goes back way
beyond Bismarck.
Cheers, Alex
Andrew Chaplin
> Please tell me you are a lawyer and make a living out of being
> pedantic.
Here you go:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoCom/CommitteeMain.asp?Language=E&CommitteeID=145&Joint=0.
A good example of the sort of job you can get with a history degree
and a couple of decades experience in the armed forces.
> See that big building in New York, it hosts an organisation called the
> UN - what does the N stand for?
Because "United States" was already spoken for.
> The name "United Nations", coined by United States President Franklin
> D. Roosevelt, was first used in the "Declaration by United Nations" of
> 1 January 1942, during the Second World War, when representatives of
> 26 nations pledged their Governments to continue fighting together
> against the Axis Powers
>
> Why are you making such a big deal about this.
Because I think if the people of Scotland break up the U.K. they will
live to rue the day.
Rabid Bee
> Simple eh!
Were all the people at my school in Berkshire really North
Londoners/Mancunians? Most of them certainly chose to support Tottenham or
Man United. A lot of people choose succesful teams, rather than their local
teams, because they are pathetic, glory-seeking bastards with no love for
their patria.
My support for Reading is a strong element of my patriotism, my love for my
homeland.
Cheers, Alex
Rabid Bee
>
> So it is. Now why was Canuck not in the spellchecker ;-)
Obviously the programmer wasn't from Vancouver...
Cheers, Alex
Allan Connochie
"Andrew Chaplin" <abch...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:3CC61BB6...@rogers.com...
> Stu wrote:
>
> > Please tell me you are a lawyer and make a living out of being
> > pedantic.
>
> Here you go:
>
http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoCom/CommitteeMain.asp?Language=E&CommitteeID=145&J
oint=0.
> A good example of the sort of job you can get with a history degree
> and a couple of decades experience in the armed forces.
>
> > See that big building in New York, it hosts an organisation called the
> > UN - what does the N stand for?
>
> Because "United States" was already spoken for.
>
> > The name "United Nations", coined by United States President Franklin
> > D. Roosevelt, was first used in the "Declaration by United Nations" of
> > 1 January 1942, during the Second World War, when representatives of
> > 26 nations pledged their Governments to continue fighting together
> > against the Axis Powers
> >
> > Why are you making such a big deal about this.
>
> Because I think if the people of Scotland break up the U.K. they will
> live to rue the day.
That is for the Scottish and their partners to decide though. Again though
both Nationalist and Unionist Scots tend to view Scotland as a nation so
your argument is irrelevent.
Allan
Allan Connochie
"Rabid Bee" <rabi...@nospam.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:aa55hj$sk$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
See my reply to Andrew above concerning what I mean by nation. It seems
clear that Andrew denies Scottish nationhood for perceived political
reasons. He clearly does not understand that this sense of nationhood
embraces all [or at least most] political persuasion in Scotland.
Allan
>
> Cheers, Alex
>
>
Allan Connochie
Nationalism [or the denial of someone elses Nationalism] has been the cause
of much grief I know. Knowing that doesn't make the thing go away though.
Religion has done the same but knowing that doesn't mean we'd stand here and
say "Well Christians don't really exist, and it depends what you mean by a
Christian". The fact is that Scots regard themselves as a nation [whether
they are Unionists or Nationalists]and generally Scotland fits the
desription in every way apart from being a current nation state. As for
what makes up this nation. Well primarily it is the community of Scotland.
That is the people who live permanently in Scotland no matter if there
ancestors were Scottish, English, Polish, Italian, Irish, or Asian. Like
every nation of course part of it lives outside the national borders, and in
Scotland's case quite a large part of it. However there is a point where
someone stops being a Scottish national and starts being [for eg] an
American national descended from Scots. You may not like the notion of a
Scottish nation but I'm afraid that it won't go away just because you don't
like it.
Allan
Stu
<abch...@rogers.com> wrote:
>> See that big building in New York, it hosts an organisation called the
>> UN - what does the N stand for?
>
>Because "United States" was already spoken for.
>
No United Nations was more appropriate. And only pedants would argue
that a Nations is not a Nation but a state.
>> The name "United Nations", coined by United States President Franklin
>> D. Roosevelt, was first used in the "Declaration by United Nations" of
>> 1 January 1942, during the Second World War, when representatives of
>> 26 nations pledged their Governments to continue fighting together
>> against the Axis Powers
>>
>> Why are you making such a big deal about this.
>
>Because I think if the people of Scotland break up the U.K. they will
>live to rue the day.
Typical nonsense, if Scotland were to get independence it would be US
that broke up the union. You of course have non seen the little
englander jibes here have you!!
If the union were to break up it would be the "fault" of no one. It
would however be an excellent opportunity for the four home unions
(sorry couldn't resist) to move forward into the future on a more
equal footing.
Stu
Stu
You just dont get this do you. You can compare a football CLUB to a
nations football team.
Christ the pedants are out tonight.
Stu
Stu
<co...@conno.greatxscape.net> wrote:
>See my reply to Andrew above concerning what I mean by nation. It seems
>clear that Andrew denies Scottish nationhood for perceived political
>reasons. He clearly does not understand that this sense of nationhood
>embraces all [or at least most] political persuasion in Scotland.
>
I think you have hit the nail on the head with his political
objections. Quite why a Canadian would get so het up about it?? who
knows.
Stu
Stu
<skin...@nospamthankz.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>You just dont get this do you. You can compare a football CLUB to a
>nations football team.
>
A slip of the t - Can't compare I should have said.
a.spencer3
> > My support for Reading is a strong element of my patriotism, my love for
my
> homeland.
>
>
Surreyman
a.spencer3
Stu <skin...@nospamthankz.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:q8nccu0f72jrco7ne...@4ax.com...
Quite why a Canadian would get so het up about it?? who
> knows.
>
>
Surreyman
a.spencer3
> >
> Have a whisky and put your feet up, you'll get back to normal. ;-)
>
>
No, I think that rather good Dalwhinnie 15 year old.
Slainte!
Surreyman
Andrew Chaplin
> As he said, they're all Scots!
Two Sassenach immigrants, George Bowser and Ricky Blue, wrote this.
You need RealPlayer, I am afraid.
http://www.bowser-and-blue.com/clips/thescots.rm
Stu
<abch...@rogers.com> wrote:
>The notion of "nations" is unsatisfactory and unhelpful in the conduct
>of affairs between states. Nationalism is nearly as poisonous as
>religion and has accounted for nearly as many dead in the last quarter
>millennium.
Andrew I find your comparisons between Scotland seeking independence
and the murdering nationalists of the past deeply offensive.
Why don't you stick to Canadian Aquaculture as you appear to know very
little about the stance of Nationalists in Scotland.
Stu
Allan Connochie
> "a.spencer3" wrote:
>
> > As he said, they're all Scots!
>
> Two Sassenach immigrants, George Bowser and Ricky Blue, wrote this.
> You need RealPlayer, I am afraid.
> http://www.bowser-and-blue.com/clips/thescots.rm
Go on give me a clue to what it's about.
Allan
Stu
<co...@conno.greatxscape.net> wrote:
>
>"Andrew Chaplin" <abch...@rogers.com> wrote in message
>news:3CC698E8...@rogers.com...
>> "a.spencer3" wrote:
>>
>> > As he said, they're all Scots!
>>
>> Two Sassenach immigrants, George Bowser and Ricky Blue, wrote this.
>> You need RealPlayer, I am afraid.
>> http://www.bowser-and-blue.com/clips/thescots.rm
>
>Go on give me a clue to what it's about.
>
It a dull song about how the Scots built Canada, with lots of cliches
about whisky.......usual stuff.
Stu
Stu
>Bear in mind that state pensions and other benefits are funded by
>National Insurance contributions, and are provided on a pay-as-you-go
>basis, that is, current benefits are paid for out of current
>employees' and employers' contributions.
>There is no large pool of money accumulated over the years as with
>private pension schemes.
There should have been, just another example of successive govts and
their mismanagement of our resources.
>So any extra payouts have to be funded by the current working
>population.
Yup.
>>Why is it regardless. The NHS is for all not just the poor.
>
>Because how much you have paid in is irrelevant. It's what the people
>working now pay in that matters.
No its not, it matters to people like you with no regard for what
people in the past paid. Bear in mind that their contributions paid
for previous generations of old folk.
>With your tiny and falling population
>how much are you all prepared to pay to keep comfortably off people in
>their retirement homes when they may well have far larger assets than
>you tucked away for their children to inherit.
>Still as long as it's your money and not mine I applaud your
>generosity.
But its not is it, its your money. We love taking money from the
English to fritter away.
>>Not sure of your age so you might not be eligible, you see we might be
>>independent by then. The union irrevocably damaged by little
>>englanders like you.
>
>Well you will certainly be tiny scotlanders then.
>Missing you already.
Cutting, with your rapier wit I am not sure I can take much more of
it.
Stu
Stu
>No doubt true in many cases. But if I worked in Scotland it would
>stick in my craw if I had to subsidise any rich pensioners who could
>well afford to pay for their own support. Presumably even Sean Connery
>will be eligible if he returns to Scotland in his dotage.
>
>Still as long as it's not my money.
So whats your beef then, you whine about subsidising us and now you
say its not your money.
You're a bit confused aren't you.
Stu
Allan Connochie
Oh right! Thanks.
Allan
>
> Stu
Stu
<co...@conno.greatxscape.net> wrote:
>> It a dull song about how the Scots built Canada, with lots of cliches
>> about whisky.......usual stuff.
>
>Oh right! Thanks.
>
>Allan
I seriously hope Andrew doesn't hold great store in it.
Stu
Allan Connochie
"Dave" <da...@knowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pj2ecugqiknfsdu0o...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2002 20:41:18 +0100, Stu
> <skin...@nospamthanks.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 23 Apr 2002 20:03:06 +0100, Dave <da...@knowhere.com> wrote:
>
> With your tiny and falling population
> how much are you all prepared to pay to keep comfortably off people in
> their retirement homes
Hopefully we can try to avoid a situation where the country's population
keeps haemorrhaging which has been a problem that the centralised UK state
has manifestly failed to tackle.
Allan
Stu
>Better to be a rapier wit than a half wit.
>Course you can take it. You know your arrogance demands that you have
>the last word.
No it doesn't.
Stu
Rabid Bee
for
> my
> > homeland.
> >
> >
> Or maybe you've just decided, since they got promoted!
You know well I have not just decided!
Cheers, Alex
Rabid Bee
> >> Simple eh!
> >
> >Were all the people at my school in Berkshire really North
> >Londoners/Mancunians? Most of them certainly chose to support Tottenham
or
> >Man United. A lot of people choose succesful teams, rather than their
local
> >teams, because they are pathetic, glory-seeking bastards with no love for
> >their patria.
> >
> >My support for Reading is a strong element of my patriotism, my love for
my
> >homeland.
> >
>
> nations football team.
Why not? Same principle, just scaled up. Isn't a cockney red exactly the
same process as your examples of English guys calling themselves Scots
because they moved their?
Besides which, you're right, I don't compare club and national football.
Club football is much more important to me. I live and breath as a Reading
fan. England FC only convene every few months. I would swap the world cup
for three points for Reading.
Besides which, why can't I consider Berks my patria?
Cheers, Alex
John Kane
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 07:08:47 +0100, "Allan Connochie"
> <co...@conno.greatxscape.net> wrote:
>
> >See my reply to Andrew above concerning what I mean by nation. It seems
> >clear that Andrew denies Scottish nationhood for perceived political
> >reasons. He clearly does not understand that this sense of nationhood
> >embraces all [or at least most] political persuasion in Scotland.
> >
Actually he probably has a good idea. It has been an issue in Canada since
1867. (Half a century later in Newfoundland [1] ) Circumstances are
definitely not the same but some of the discussion is.
>
> I think you have hit the nail on the head with his political
> objections. Quite why a Canadian would get so het up about it?? who
> knows.
>
> Stu
We live with it every day and it is not just an internet discussion. It is
complicated and at times can be nasty. :( The problem is not that everyone
in Scotland thinks of themselves as part of a Scottish nation. The problem
is that the various parties may not be in agreement about something like
dissolving the union and forming an independent state.
(Canadian Joke)
--
John Kane
Who voted in the latest Québec referendum
The Rideau Lakes, Ontario Canada
John Kane
And certainly an outlandish exageration. Up the Irish!
--
John Kane
Andrew Chaplin
> Andrew I find your comparisons between Scotland seeking independence
> and the murdering nationalists of the past deeply offensive.
Then you need to be offended. Perhaps you should look within yourself
and see why you bring it on.
> Why don't you stick to Canadian Aquaculture as you appear to know very
> little about the stance of Nationalists in Scotland.
That was uncalled for.
I have dealt with people, too many of them of Scots descent and
armigers matriculated by Lord Lyon to boot, who have notions of the
value of nationhood. Such crap is the basis of the KKK. The notion of
"nation" is as dangerous and as worthless as the notion of "race;"
both are vile constructs. I will try to stiffle support for either
wherever I can. Where I can't stiffle them, I will strive to discredit
them.
Allan Connochie
> Stu wrote:
>
> > Andrew I find your comparisons between Scotland seeking independence
> > and the murdering nationalists of the past deeply offensive.
>
> Then you need to be offended. Perhaps you should look within yourself
> and see why you bring it on.
That is absolute nonsense. The devolution debate has had no connotations
like that at all. Achieved without even one bleeding nose is how the then
leader of the Scots Nats described it. It had been a purely democratic
debate on "all" sides. Likewise the push for independence is also purely
democratic and non ethnic! People may point to some figures who exist [ie
one old drunk living on a Dublin estate and a couple of his cronies; and a
tiny anti-English clique who had been expelled from the SNP and have no
popular support] but thankfully though dangerous eejits exist in all
societies, they are comparatively rare in Scotland. Likewise the vast
majority [virtually all] of English people recognise that "if" Scots wish
more autonomy then they must have it. They may not understand why much of
the time by that is another matter. In Great Britain the only significant
Nationalist group who are akin to fascists are the British Nationalist
Party.
>
> > Why don't you stick to Canadian Aquaculture as you appear to know very
> > little about the stance of Nationalists in Scotland.
>
> That was uncalled for.
But true!
>
> I have dealt with people, too many of them of Scots descent and
> armigers matriculated by Lord Lyon to boot, who have notions of the
> value of nationhood. Such crap is the basis of the KKK. The notion of
> "nation" is as dangerous and as worthless as the notion of "race;"
> both are vile constructs. I will try to stiffle support for either
> wherever I can. Where I can't stiffle them, I will strive to discredit
> them.
And what has fascism amongst a certain section of the Scottish diaspora in
North America got to do with Scotland or the SNP [who have loudly condemned
such groups on all fronts]. I know such people exist. I wrote myself to
the editor of the Scotsman newspaper condemning their conncections with
Andrew MacDairmid's "Simply Scottish" radio station in Texas and was told
that all ties had been cut as soon as they saw the lies and crap [well these
words weren't exactly used] this guy sometimes spouts forth. Scots
shouldn't have to cast democracy aside simply because of the views of a few
anti-English nutters in North America.
Allan
Allan Connochie
"John Kane" <jka...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3CC765F7...@sympatico.ca...
Fair dos as far as Canada goes, however the discussions in Scotland have not
been nasty. This is what he doesn't understand. He is taking events from
one part of the world and transposing them into another country.
Allan
Anthony Waldstock
> I can't resist the urge to let people know about a poll just published
> by a Scottish newspaper for "the greatest Scot in history", and picked
> up by BBC radio news. William Wallace, boringly, came first. Tony
> Blair came 95th, 18 places behind Dolly the sheep.
Ah yes, but there are currently two vacancies in the Order of the Garter and
for that there will be no poll, just patronage, and guess who the People's
President - er Prime Minsiter - will be recommending?
No, silly, who ever heard of a sheep wearing garters???
Anthony Waldstock
--
Discover the great, the strange, the seedy, the inspired, the criminal and
the downright ordinary past of one of the World's Greatest Cities! Visit
www.storyoflondon.com.
John Cartmell
<rabi...@nospam.btinternet.com> wrote:
> > You just dont get this do you. You can compare a football CLUB to a
> > nations football team.
> Why not? Same principle, just scaled up. Isn't a cockney red exactly
> the same process as your examples of English guys calling themselves
> Scots because they moved their?
> Besides which, you're right, I don't compare club and national football.
> Club football is much more important to me. I live and breath as a
> Reading fan. England FC only convene every few months. I would swap the
> world cup for three points for Reading.
Alex is right. Club team is far more important than country team - at least
for those who support their local club. Despite living on the banks of the
Mersey for 25+ years I still support my local (where I was born and brought
up) team*. Country gets a look in as an occasional summer spectacular.
* My now-local team doesn't have the right 'feel' to replace my original
loyalties so I leave its support to impoverished southerners. ;-)
--
John Cartmell
Stu
<abch...@rogers.com> wrote:
>> Andrew I find your comparisons between Scotland seeking independence
>> and the murdering nationalists of the past deeply offensive.
>
>Then you need to be offended. Perhaps you should look within yourself
>and see why you bring it on.
So you are offending me? If so, then that is fine. I just thought
that you were showing your ignorance of our domestic politics..
>
>> Why don't you stick to Canadian Aquaculture as you appear to know very
>> little about the stance of Nationalists in Scotland.
>
>That was uncalled for.
Was it, being lectured by you on what may nation is, having
independence for my country compared to nationalist murderers of the
20th C, was that called for?
>I have dealt with people, too many of them of Scots descent and
>armigers matriculated by Lord Lyon to boot, who have notions of the
>value of nationhood. Such crap is the basis of the KKK. The notion of
>"nation" is as dangerous and as worthless as the notion of "race;"
>both are vile constructs. I will try to stiffle support for either
>wherever I can. Where I can't stiffle them, I will strive to discredit
>them.
But you have made no attempts to discredit them. Only passing remarks
with outlandish comparisons. If you have a theory give it to us,
don't make snide little passing comments, they only end up belittling
your argument.
Stu
a.spencer3
> "nation" is as dangerous and as worthless as the notion of "race;"
> both are vile constructs. I will try to stiffle support for either
> wherever I can. Where I can't stiffle them, I will strive to discredit
> them.
>
Andrew, whilst I have great respect for many of your intentions, you are
falling, maybe unintentionally, into the mire that we see so many others
deliberately dive right into.
Most right-thinking people, as you, will wish to stifle the evils that can
arise from racism and nationalism.
But 'racism' and 'nationalism' are words that can simply mean extreme and
undesirable views relating to race and nations.
You cannot therefore hope to ban the roots of race and nations to cure the
ill! Race & nations are with us and will always be with us. They are facts
of life.
You do not cure the headache by cutting off the head!
Surreyman
a.spencer3
> Besides which, why can't I consider Berks my patria?
>
>
Surreyman
a.spencer3
> 1867. (Half a century later in Newfoundland
Nearly a century later, surely?
Surreyman