It does so on an average of a newly independent country every two years. I hadn't noticed we had turned into a socialist utopia either.
We are already 'segregated' and divided. This is merely succession from political unity.
An Independent Scotland?
- Thread starter rz30
- Start date
It does so on an average of a newly independent country every two years. I hadn't noticed we had turned into a socialist utopia either.
We are already 'segregated' and divided. This is merely succession from political unity.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,589
- Location
- Warwickshire
Sorry what?
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
I wonder if this is because the older you get the wiser you get, and the younger people tend to be far more idealistic.
I don't want to see independance at all - but from a purely selfish perspective. I like Scotland and I enjoy living in a country of which Scotland is a part. The UK would be worse off without it.
Just that.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,589
- Location
- Warwickshire
Well I literally don't understand so could you help me out. You're saying there is on average a new country every two years?
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;19432252 said:
Majority under 65 in this poll are idealistic then?
An equal opposing argument can be carried that the old have an emotional attachment to a failing union.
I think there is an inherrent danger in this type of definative blanket statements.
The whole thing boils down to generation politics in my opinion, "my father voted...". Still has a lasting legacy on intentions.
[TW]Fox;19432252 said:
That's very kind. I'm of the opinion that structurally the UK would be better off. Either which way we are still neighbours with a long illustrious history which will continue into the future in any eventuallity.
Last edited:
Well yes, not 'new' new but political succession. On average.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,589
- Location
- Warwickshire
Right. Well I was actually referring to the slightly less coherent comments made in the op with my first post in this thread.
I couldn't care less if Scotland had independence politically or not, it wouldn't noticeably change anything for me, It would be fun watching the Scots scrabble around trying to pay for their health service, free prescriptions and free tuition fees though.
I couldn't care less if Scotland had independence politically or not, it wouldn't noticeably change anything for me, It would be fun watching the Scots scrabble around trying to pay for their health service, free prescriptions and free tuition fees though.
I have only visited once but found it to be a beautiful place with stunning scenery, fantastic architecture and lovely people with a great accent. Really enjoyed it.
Ahh I see, sorry. Thought that was in reference to independence not bigotry.
Scotland at present is economically viable. The argument is if it is worth it. We already do pay for them with the exception of tution fees as that has a black hole liability in the long term but that is where the new economic powers come in. Ability to make up for it.
That's why it's in GD and not SC
If the Scots want it, it's their prerogative. I'd happily dump NI and Wales too. Just don't come running back when it all turns to **** though.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 17 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 1,288
We have a sweaty sock near us, about 5 houses away.. nice family, Rangers fan as it happens.
However the real problem lies with the indians that have appeared at the bottom of the road (a fair way from us, but still) - although they rent, house prices have plummeted, but thats going OT... although I cant confirm if they were previously based in Scotland.
As for Scotland, id say no.. only because they couldnt run themselves properly and we would need to bail them out every fortnight with a huge JSA giro
However the real problem lies with the indians that have appeared at the bottom of the road (a fair way from us, but still) - although they rent, house prices have plummeted, but thats going OT... although I cant confirm if they were previously based in Scotland.
As for Scotland, id say no.. only because they couldnt run themselves properly and we would need to bail them out every fortnight with a huge JSA giro
Just in case you are serious:
Braveheart is nationalist propaganda with no real connection to reality.
There never was any such law.
Lies.
There was such a "law".
Braveheart is also hardly a nationalist propoganda tool, what is Mel Gibson to Scot's independence?
The film had a very loose connection with reality I'll give you that.
The film is a piece of nationalist propaganda. What little of it is based on reality is biased to such an extent that it may as well be fiction. It's anti-English propaganda, plain and simple. Whether anyone regards that as racist or not depends on what they're calling "race". The "ius primae noctis" fiction is just a part of it.
This is a film that had Wallace fathering a child by a woman who in reality was a young child (and in France). We're not talking about inadvertant anachronisms due to a lack of historical knowledge (though there are plenty of those as well). We're talking about deliberate misrepresentation and outright fiction.
As for "Scottish perception", which one? There were Scots on both sides.
No, there wasn't. It's completely fictional. There's no evidence for such a law ever having existed anywhere, let alone in England.
The closest thing to it in reality is that a manor lord was legally allowed to sell permission for a serf from his manor to marry a serf from a different manor. Which didn't happen often because serfs tended not to have enough money to make it worthwhile.
It's a mixture of bias and fiction for the purposes of beatifying one nation and demonising another, promoting conflict between them. That's very much nationalist propaganda.
A useful propagandist.
With a purpose, hence it being propaganda.
No it isn't, it's simply a part fictional film.
"What little of it is based on reality is biased to such an extent that it may as well be fiction. It's anti-English propaganda, plain and simple."
Kneejerk reaction. There are a few aspects to it that are from what you could call a creative licence largely taken from Blind Harry's accounts, other than that the overall framework of the film itself is just a rough historical take on the times.
In reality there was no child and wife as far as is known.
There are deliberate misrepresentations and fictions in history in this topic Braveheart is by no means standing alone in that respect.
The Scottish perception, as in Scots in Scotland, was invasion and massacre.
Erm yes there were. How can it be completely fictional when you give the answer, and there are historical references?
There was undoubtadly notions of Droit du seigneur or Ius primae noctis and it relates, at least in terms of historical evidence, to serfs as you put it.
Why would he even bother?
What is his agenda?
I agree that aspects of it were factually incorrect but to put that down immediately as anti English agenda stoking the fires of grievance is just emotional claptrap.
What puprose did it have other than making a profit?