Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
And in other news

By Rogerborg in Culture
Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 09:00:18 AM EST
Tags: Culture (all tags)
Culture

The other 95% of the world's population also have their own September 11th events to remember.

For example, the referendum that secured a Scottish parliament on September 11th 1997.

If we're looking for things to cheer us up, a peaceful devolution of power and a celebration of diversity after 300 years of cultural intrusion and foreign rule must rate fairly highly.  It also serves as a timely reminder of just how deep cultural differences can run, and that memories of conflicts and imperialism are very long indeed.


The people of Scotland and England share the same island and (mostly) the same language and appearance.  They have shared a monarch since 1603 when James VI of Scotland was crowned James I of England - even today Queen Elizabeth II of England is properly known as Queen Elizabeth the First of Scotland, and whether she should be called the First or Second of the United Kingdom is still debated.  Since 1707, the two countries have shared a Parliament, passports, athletes, and have shed blood together as part of a single military.  Wales and parts of Ireland have been assimilated to various degrees, and some minor colonies have come and gone.

However, after nearly three hundred years of political integration, Scotland and England still had different legal and education systems, and even variant flavours of the same religion and currency, with pound sterling currency notes drawn on Scots banks sometimes being rejected south of the border.  The 1707 Act of Union was and still is popularly viewed by Scots as a fiat capitulation by a landed ruling class without a popular mandate, and the resentment of that never abated.  As a final insult, a 1979 referendum on Scottish devolution failed because even though it obtained a 52% yes vote on a turnout of 64%, the government of the time required a yes vote from an arbitrary figure of 40% of the eligible voters - not just those that actually voted - before accepting the result.  This helped to imbue a feeling that there was no point in voting, which resulted in a low turnout and a nice self fulfilling prophecy.

A long held election promise by the Labour party to hold another referendum based on a majority of actual votes was honoured when it returned to power in the United Kingdom parliament in 1997.  And on September 11th 1997, the Scots people finally and conclusively voted for the formation of a Scottish parliament.

The Parliament, based in the Scottish capital of Edinburgh, has remit over education, health, agriculture and justice and can vary national taxes by up to 3% from the levels set by the UK government, while the Parliament of the United Kingdom in London retains power over the defence and foreign affairs of England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the remaining colonies.

Scotland has a healthy political climate, with four main political parties: Scottish flavours of the three main United Kingdom parties, plus the Scottish National Party, who campaign on a platform of full independence for Scotland.  They are not, however, an isolationist party, as their goal is to promote Scotland as an independent nation within the European Parliament, a strategy that has been very successful for the Republic of Ireland.

In relation to other world events of September 11th, the devolution of Scotland from the United Kingdom has some valuable lessons to teach us.

Firstly, forced solutions to cultural clashes don't always work in the long term.  Bringing peace with the point of a bayonet will solve the immediate political crisis, and the results might not come back to bite you in this generation, or the next, but memories are long.  It took Scotland nearly three hundred years to redress the unpopular Union of 1707.  Those in the USA who assert that the South will rise again can take heart that the American Civil War was less than a hundred and fifty years ago.  Have patience.  Your great great grandchildren might yet see a Southern Congress.

But secondly, September 11th 1997 shows that peaceful resolutions to cultural conflicts can be found.  All it takes is for those with power over others - officially or de facto - to have the courage to admit that each act of coercion has to be judged not just on its immediate merits, but on its long term repercussions, and that homogenity might be an unachievable goal.  Sometimes it's better to just agree to disagree and to leave well alone.

And with particular reference to September 11th 2001, let's remember that achieving peace and stability means more than just sabre rattling or picking the next regime.  On this day, let's raise a glass to those politicians of principle and vision that think beyond the next election or the next crisis, that choose restraint and concilliation, and most of all, that let people decide who they want to be, and who they want to be governed by, which is arguably the best long term strategy for living together on our crowded little planet in peace, if perhaps not in total harmony.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Is my argument bunk because Germany and Japan are allies with the USA and UK now?
o Ooh, good point, you're busted. 8%
o Not really, we're just limiting ourselves to stabbing each other in the wallets. 29%
o No, because importantly we didn't impose a government on them. 18%
o Give it another 250 years and we'll see. 44%

Votes: 61
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Scottish parliament
o Ireland
o minor
o colonies
o Act of Union
o 1979 referendum
o Labour party
o and conclusively
o Scottish parliament [2]
o Scottish National Party
o European Parliament
o Republic of Ireland
o peace and stability
o principle
o vision
o Also by Rogerborg


Display: Sort:
And in other news | 117 comments (88 topical, 29 editorial, 0 hidden)
London, not England (4.84 / 13) (#1)
by am3nhot3p on Wed Sep 11, 2002 at 11:19:04 AM EST

I can certainly sympathise with Scottish grievances regarding perceived English dominance.  However, the animosity towards England in general might be better directed towards London. The rest of the United Kingdom has to suffer from policies that assume that problems in London are national problems, and that London solutions are appropriate for the whole nation:
  • Economic growth in the South-East at the expense of the rest of the country
  • Petrol taxation to dissuade car usage, when there is no reliable public transport to provide an alternative in most places
  • Disastrous mismanagement of the rural economy (with particular reference to foot-and-mouth disease)
  • Loss of affordable housing in the 'provinces' due to an influx of well-heeled city folk buying holiday homes
  • Reduced spending on motorways and the decades-long British Rail fiasco together make business difficult in many areas
That's just a list off the top of my head. I could probably find more examples or phrase them better, but I hope that it illustrates a point.

The Government is, and perhaps always has been to some extent, metropolitan. A large proportion of the population lives there, and most of the apparatus of government is centred there.  Politicians and civil servants spend most of their time there. It is therefore not a surprise that they should be preoccupied with the city. However, they seem to forget the rest of the country rather too often. The Scottish situation is not unique, and Scotland has actually done rather well financially from the Union - per-capita spending is far higher than in England to support the sparsely-populated Highlands and Islands. I urge the Scots to point the finger at the guilty parties: London-based politicians in particular, rather than the English in general, who are mostly innocent of their alleged transgressions.

Indeed (3.00 / 1) (#5)
by Rogerborg on Wed Sep 11, 2002 at 11:43:28 AM EST

The Scottish islands feel much the same about Edinburgh, and there's a movement towards English regional  assemblies to go along with the Welsh Assembly that I didn't even mention for fear of diluting the subject matter.

In fact, given that fully half of the decisions concerning day to day life in the UK are already taken in Europe, the Westminster Parliament might find itself eaten from both above and below, and in the not too distant future might be responsible only for sabre rattling.

This all backs up my premise, which is that trying to enforce cultural homegenity can backfire on you in the long run, regardless of how well it appears to work for the first few years, the first few hundred years, or even a thousand years.  In the end, people do seem to want to be governed by local people.

"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

Ha. (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by kaemaril on Wed Sep 11, 2002 at 12:41:43 PM EST

the Westminster Parliament might find itself eaten from both above and below, and in the not too distant future might be responsible only for sabre rattling.

Although I'm glad to see that TB has decided to reconvene Parliament for a one (or maybe even two!) day debate on the subject of a war with Iraq, it's pretty obvious that if Tony Blair gets his way Parliament won't even be responsible for the sabre rattling. That decision will be Tony's, and Tony's alone.


Why, yes, I am being sarcastic. Why do you ask?


[ Parent ]
Hmm, quite (4.00 / 1) (#19)
by Rogerborg on Wed Sep 11, 2002 at 01:25:30 PM EST

it's pretty obvious that if Tony Blair gets his way Parliament won't even be responsible for the sabre rattling. That decision will be Tony's, and Tony's alone.

Quite, but I doubt that it's future tense.  I also suspect that President Prime Minister Blair is rather irked that there's already an incumbent Head of State in the UK.


But let's give him 300 years and see how history views him then. ;-)


"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

Hee (4.00 / 1) (#21)
by bil on Wed Sep 11, 2002 at 01:44:09 PM EST

I also suspect that President Prime Minister Blair is rather irked that there's already an incumbent Head of State in the UK.

I remember the good ol'days when very similar things were said about Thatcher...

bil


bil
Where you stand depends on where you sit...
[ Parent ]

Indeed (4.00 / 1) (#25)
by kaemaril on Wed Sep 11, 2002 at 05:52:26 PM EST

Yes, Tony learnt from the master. Or Mistress, in this case :)


Why, yes, I am being sarcastic. Why do you ask?


[ Parent ]
President Blair (none / 0) (#74)
by the womble on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 01:53:02 PM EST

His spin doctors once persuaded an American journalist to refer to Cherie Blair as the first lady of the UK (sorry I can not remember who).

He is also very keen on the EU, and in particular a European consititution that will strengthen the position of the president of the EU - guess who is one of the favourites to be a future holder of that job?

Given that one of the other candidates is the current Spanish prime minister it is interesting that Tony is so keen on being accomadating to the Spanish over Gibraltar.

Add to that his attempts to play down royal events and I think you have a clear picture of his thwarted ambitions.

[ Parent ]

President Blair (none / 0) (#113)
by Aztech on Sat Sep 14, 2002 at 09:49:03 AM EST

Not quite, I think Tony quite likes being a Prime Minister hiding behind the all powerful royal prerogative then acting like a President rather than being an official president and having to deal with all that division of powers nuisance.

The Pres of the US for instance needs to get congressional approval for declaration of war despite being the commander in chief (*cough* Cambodia?), whilst the PM can just declare war without consulting Parliament, in fact even though Parliament is to be recalled for a debate on Iraq there isn't going to be a vote, and if they do hold a division/vote on a technical basis to adjourn the house... it's entirely symbolic, constitutionally Blair doesn't require them to approve his war actions.

[ Parent ]
Sigh (none / 0) (#117)
by Rogerborg on Mon Sep 23, 2002 at 05:53:44 AM EST

The Pres of the US for instance needs to get congressional approval for declaration of war despite being the commander in chief

Comforting thought, but unfortunately untrue.

"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

And never was anything else in modern times (none / 0) (#92)
by thebrix on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 04:40:34 PM EST

It's a strange constitutional quirk that, when push comes to shove, it's the Prime Minister who decides whether the country is at war, or not.

Parliament seems to be a sounding board but not much more; for example, Eden declared war against Egypt, with the connivance of France and Israel but the non-cooperation of the USA, in 1956 (the 'Suez crisis') amidst the most violent controversy with resignations of Cabinet ministers, fighting among MPs and other ructions.

Suez could be an unfortunate precedent ...

[ Parent ]

Skye Toll Bridge... (4.00 / 2) (#34)
by gordonjcp on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 05:11:19 AM EST

Skye and Kyle Against Tolls is a pressure group trying to get our ineffectual government to stop the Bank of America ripping off Scotland. They put up the money for the Skye Bridge, which the last Conservative government funded using their spiffy new "Private Finance Initiative". This effectively means that 1% of the takings on the bridge toll goes to pay off the 28M bill of building the bridge.

Oh, and at 5.70 per car *each way*, it's the most expensive toll bridge in Europe. Possibly the world. It's the only route on and off Skye. The tolls have completely killed tourism on Skye, which is just about the largest source of income.

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


[ Parent ]
Definitely not the most expensive! (none / 0) (#39)
by MSBob on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 08:48:17 AM EST

Here in Canada we have the Confederation Bridge (the one that joins PEI with the rest of the country) the toll for crossing the bridge is $34CDN on leaving the island. That is still 17 bucks one way which is more than 5.70GBP.
I don't mind paying taxes, they buy me civilization.

[ Parent ]
How long is it? (none / 0) (#43)
by gordonjcp on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 09:40:13 AM EST

I bet it's longer than the 1.2km that the Skye bridge is... I'm also prepared to bet that there's another route you could take, avoiding the bridge. But yeah, that's a bit more expensive.

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


[ Parent ]
It's one of the longest in the world (none / 0) (#100)
by MSBob on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 08:29:48 PM EST

The confederation bridge is 12.9 km long and it is one of the longest bridges in the world. Oh, and by the way the fare is now $37.75 :)

Here is the link to its website.

I don't mind paying taxes, they buy me civilization.

[ Parent ]
See, that's a decently long bridge. (none / 0) (#116)
by gordonjcp on Sun Sep 15, 2002 at 04:46:46 AM EST

What irks is that the Skye bridge is shorter than, say, the Erskine bridge near Glasgow, which is 60 pence each way. Also, the ferry that the bridge replaced was only about 3 until six months before the bridge opened, then was increased to 5.20.

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


[ Parent ]
Why use the bridge? (none / 0) (#49)
by Khendon on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 10:57:38 AM EST

Why not pretend the bridge doesn't exist? Presumably everybody managed okay before the bridge?

[ Parent ]
Previously on Skye (none / 0) (#50)
by Vulch on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 11:04:33 AM EST

The only way on and off Skye before the toll bridge was by ferry. Guess what, the service was withdrawn as soon as the bridge opened. If you need a vehicle, the bridge is the only option.

[ Parent ]

Citizen's ferry? (none / 0) (#51)
by Khendon on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 11:15:01 AM EST

How many residents on Skye? How much is a small ferry boat?

[ Parent ]
Great idea. Guess what? (none / 0) (#54)
by gordonjcp on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 11:33:57 AM EST

Part of building the bridge involved demolishing one of the ferry slips.

Anyway, the tolls on the bridge are, under EU law, illegal. It's just a case of getting the present Labour government to understand this (although they understood it perfectly before they were elected).

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


[ Parent ]
So build another ferry slip :-) (none / 0) (#56)
by Khendon on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 11:36:52 AM EST

If a ferry is viable, you (or some private enterprise) could run one. If a bridge with a lower toll was viable you (or some private enterprise) could build one of those, too.

I'm interested, though - what EU law makes it illegal?

[ Parent ]

No, you can't build another slip as easily as that (none / 0) (#61)
by gordonjcp on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 11:58:09 AM EST

As to it being illegal, there is a law (I can't quote chapter and verse, although I can point you at someone who can) which says that if you build a bridge or causeway, it must be toll-free unless there is an alternate route within 12 miles.

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


[ Parent ]
Parliament (4.00 / 1) (#111)
by Aztech on Sat Sep 14, 2002 at 08:50:52 AM EST

"I can certainly sympathise with Scottish grievances regarding perceived English dominance."
All this talk somehow assumes Scotland was entirely controlled by the 'English' without any form of representation, I'm not being pernicious here however it should be said compared to the rest of the country Scotland is actually overly represented in the UK Parliament (Westminster). I believe in England the average is around 95,000 constituents per MP whilst in Scotland it's something like 60-70k constituents per MP, so there's 1/3 more Scottish MP's than there "should" be and they still get to vote on bill's that only concern England & Wales, however the numbers can be explained by practicality of geography to a degree.

It should also be said spending per capita is actually 18% above English levels and Scotland runs at a net deficit within the UK, so they don't get too bad a deal from this evil Act of Union, however saying that I believe Northern Ireland 'enjoys' the highest spending per capita in the UK, but that's a different issue entirely.

Before anyone remarks on my alleged "English pig" status I do have direct Scottish ancestry ;) Division politics doesn't really cut it in the UK since we're quite intermingled, whether they like to admit it or not. If I were a true pig I'd say "get rid of this burden" (Wales, NI, Scotland) but united we stand.

[ Parent ]
London centric (none / 0) (#112)
by Aztech on Sat Sep 14, 2002 at 09:14:36 AM EST

The Government is, and perhaps always has been to some extent, metropolitan. A large proportion of the population lives there, and most of the apparatus of government is centred there."
Only 16% of the UK population is in London IIRC, however being in the Midlands and delegated to living in the "regions" I do sympathise with the Scottish, I'm only 200 miles away from London yet its agenda seems self-centred and remote so I can imagine what it must feel like in Glasgow. If I see another story on the "national" news about the bleedin Major of London I'll scream!

The location of the new National (football) Stadium is one such example, why put a "national" stadium on a spacious plot slap bang in the middle of the country next to the centre of the motorway network, railway network and international airport when you locate it in a pokey little corner of London that is impossible to get to.

I guess it's just a legacy of having such a centralised system of government, remember 1/3 of the world was ruled by Westminster just over a century ago so they had no problems ruling the whole of the UK in such a centralised manner. However I can't help thinking increased subsidiarity and proposed regional assemblies for England would just add another layer of ineffectual bureaucracy and "draw up" power from existing local authorities thus making government more remote, delegating more power to existing local authorities is risky too, my local council for instance is an utter failure, they already squander enough money through the annual 10% real terms tax rise, giving more power to those divided slacked jawed yokels scares the hell out of me.

[ Parent ]
Act of union (5.00 / 6) (#12)
by bil on Wed Sep 11, 2002 at 12:45:29 PM EST

The act of union was (IIRC) accepted and signed by the Scots, not imposed at gun point by the English. Those who signed decided that it was in their best interest to be united with London (of course the interest of the nobles isn't always the same as the interest of the people...).

Oh and the Scots were just as capable of invading England as the other way round (although mostly it was the (militarily stronger) English going north)

Us English get blamed for a lot but its not always (entirely) our fault :)

Apart from that good article.


bil
Where you stand depends on where you sit...

Thanks (none / 0) (#17)
by Rogerborg on Wed Sep 11, 2002 at 01:09:29 PM EST

Those who signed decided that it was in their best interest to be united with London (of course the interest of the nobles isn't always the same as the interest of the people...

Ah, which was the bit I forgot to mention.  Thanks for pointing that out, I got it in just under the hammer.

I was going to introduce a few disclaimers that the opinion of the Scots about the Act of Union isn't necessarily correct, but I felt that I had too many subordinate clauses as it is.  As with many K5 articles, it's really just a taster to encourage further investigation, as the opinion of any article author should be assumed to be highly suspect and biased until proven otherwise. ;-)

"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

Erm, not initially at gun point, no. (4.50 / 2) (#32)
by gordonjcp on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 05:03:32 AM EST

However, had the Scots not signed the Act of Union with the English, guess what would have happened next? Some of us are just not *quite* old enough to remember Culloden, but not far off...

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


[ Parent ]
Erm. What you blithering about... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by m0rzo on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 09:23:14 AM EST

..Culloden for? Culloden was fought in 1746, some years after the Union and was a Jacobite act of aggression. Stuart-led Scottish Highlander soldiers ambushing British soldiers by night in the last, fateful battle which they hoped would not drive the English out of Scotland but would get Stuart the entire British crown. I fail to see where Culloden fits into what would have happened had Scotland not signed the Union.


My last sig was just plain offensive.
[ Parent ]

My point being... (none / 0) (#44)
by gordonjcp on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 09:44:05 AM EST

... that the English have had a habit of dumping soldiers up here any time they feel like throwing some weight around. Rather like the USA and Iraq, really. Probably the most offensive case was a couple of years ago, when the army sent a whole load of people up to the Isle of Skye "on an excercise". This was around when the Skye bridge opened, and presumably they were expecting trouble from protesters about the disproportionately high tolls. The premise of the exercise was that they were training to "quell civil disturbance, in the event of civil war in the former eastern bloc". Yeah, right.

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


[ Parent ]
It's for your own good. (3.66 / 3) (#52)
by another pete on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 11:16:26 AM EST

Without the English to blame all your woes on where would you be?

Face facts, if you ignore the cross dressing, alcoholism and 'thriftiness', your whole national identity is based around being oppressed by the English.

Without us you'd just be the poor-man's Welsh.



[ Parent ]
What's the defintion of a well balanced Scotsman? (none / 0) (#58)
by vrai on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 11:42:47 AM EST

He's got a chip on both shoulders.

Disclaimer: I was told this joke by my boss, who is Scottish (a Morton supporter for the record).

[ Parent ]

Identity Crisis (none / 0) (#66)
by Ngwenya on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 12:16:57 PM EST

Face facts, if you ignore the cross dressing, alcoholism and 'thriftiness', your whole national identity is based around being oppressed by the English.

Oh, touche. Voltaire would be proud. A cutting jab at the entire value set of 5 million Scots! How could we have pretended to a true national identity when every one of us is nothing more than a colossal walking grudge? What happened then? Did your girlfriend/boyfriend get pinched by a Scotsman? Bummer.

The whole point of devolution was to ensure that the Scots couldn't go on whingeing about the English. Suddenly they have to run their own affairs instead of moaning that outsiders are doing it badly.

And if some of them continue to do so? Sod them - they're just cringing losers, and every nation is well populated with such folk

--Ng


[ Parent ]

Ooooooo! (none / 0) (#67)
by another pete on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 12:28:16 PM EST

Oh, touche. Voltaire would be proud. A cutting jab at the entire value set of 5 million Scots!

Thank you, thank you, praise indeed.



[ Parent ]
How can you tell a plane has English people on it? (none / 0) (#85)
by it certainly is on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 03:10:25 PM EST

When they turn the engines off, it carries on whining.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

A Scot took his date home by taxi, (none / 0) (#107)
by another pete on Fri Sep 13, 2002 at 05:15:11 AM EST

She was so beautiful he could hardly take his eyes off the meter.

[ Parent ]
My mother was English and my father was Scottish, (none / 0) (#110)
by it certainly is on Sat Sep 14, 2002 at 06:29:23 AM EST

therefore I'm both stuck-up and mean.

obsessive fanboys: the above is a joke, it is not actually true

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

+1 FP Story, -1 Title (1.75 / 4) (#20)
by thelizman on Wed Sep 11, 2002 at 01:32:08 PM EST

BTW, there appears to be some UK-isms, but someone else already pointed it out. I just wanted to point out that you "kelled tha anglesh" there a bit.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
The title (none / 0) (#45)
by pmc on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 10:18:31 AM EST

The title is a take off on one the major news channels here (ITN on ITV), who end their main evening edition of the news with "And in other news...". This invariably either recounts some vomit inducing tale of heart warming success against all the odds ("Puppies saved from drowning"), or possibly a poignant tale that causes toes to curl and items to be thrown at the screen ("Man dies while trying to save drowning puppies"). Despite this, these little ditties are appreciated in Scotland, as it is only during these items that there is the remote possibility of any item of Scottish news, no matter how trite, actually being broadcast on the national channel.

[ Parent ]
-1 Again, UK-centric, Provincial (1.00 / 1) (#69)
by thelizman on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 12:36:00 PM EST

"And in other news" is not something ITN invented. News anchors in the US have been using it since the old says of CBS radio. I forget the name of the geezer who first coined it, but he did it off the cuff one day and it stuck.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
Did I say... (none / 0) (#75)
by pmc on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 01:56:12 PM EST

...that ITN invented it? Nope. I said the title of the article that it is a take off of this phrase, which it is.

It is difficult for an article to be both Country-centric and provincial.

[ Parent ]

Actually... (none / 0) (#72)
by pwhysall on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 01:23:48 PM EST

...it's "And finally...".

--
Peter
K5 Editors
I'm going to wager that the story keeps getting dumped because it is a steaming pile of badly formatted fool-meme.
CheeseBurgerBrown
[ Parent ]
Correct (none / 0) (#76)
by pmc on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 01:57:32 PM EST

"In other news" = stuff outside London, whereas "Finally" is the fluffy, nausea inducing stuff.

[ Parent ]
And Finally .... (none / 0) (#94)
by Maclir on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 05:10:30 PM EST

"Its goodnight from me"

"And goodnight from him."

[ Parent ]

A valiant effort (1.00 / 6) (#30)
by anansi on Wed Sep 11, 2002 at 10:49:04 PM EST

But what I really want to read about, is South Africa these days. The Scots might be justifiably proud of their new parliment, but I never heard of them chafing under the yoke the way the irish, black south africans, or kurds under Saddam Hussein. For that matter, a restrospective of a year's worth of bombing in Afghanistan seems to be in order.

-1, no one cares about scotland

Don't call it Fascism. Use Musollini's term: "Corporatism"

do some investigating before talking. (none / 0) (#47)
by Curieus on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 10:19:31 AM EST

Just for fun use google and look for "scottish revolts"
You will find quite a few.

[ Parent ]
chafing my ass (none / 0) (#48)
by daragh on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 10:55:01 AM EST

1. There was a healthy resistance to the British in Ireland from the day they invaded. In fact, I seem to recall that we gained our independance in 1922, a very long time ago. 2. Lot's of people care about scotland, including me: I recently moved here. I don't know where you're from but I'll avoid visiting.

No work.
[ Parent ]

date. (none / 0) (#82)
by turmeric on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 02:40:28 PM EST

.za would be cool to hear about but what happened there on sep 11?

[ Parent ]
Ahh Yes... (4.75 / 4) (#41)
by m0rzo on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 09:17:50 AM EST

..the 'Scottish Parliament'. And now all we need is our own Parliament. Seems like we're getting the raw deal here, doesn't it? Scotland has it's own 'Parliament', Wales and Northern Ireland both have their own 'Assemblies' and what does England have? Nothing. Nada.


My last sig was just plain offensive.

Ssshhh ... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by vrai on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 11:39:04 AM EST

Don't you know that it's politically incorrect for the English to have any nationalist instincts at all*?! Now be quiet and continue paying your taxes. We can't have the provinces going without their dole cheques and social projects can we?

[ Parent ]
English Parliaments (none / 0) (#68)
by Ngwenya on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 12:29:14 PM EST

And now all we need is our own Parliament. Seems like we're getting the raw deal here, doesn't it?

Too bloody right, you are. Remember that regional government was actually Labour Party policy after the 1997 election. And (Deputy Prime Minister) Prescott found there was slightly less interest in it than in the winner of the Eurovision Song Contest.

Now, if you mean that you want that decision to be revisited now that devolution is a reality, and you figure it might yield some benefit to the regions of England (I think that the Geordies would find being lumped in with the Home Counties as popular as a rat sandwich), then I'll back you all the way.

But don't say that England was never going to get anything, 'coz it just ain't true.

--Ng

[ Parent ]

There ARE regional assemblies (none / 0) (#83)
by hpengwyn on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 02:43:25 PM EST

they aren't directly elected e.g. the South East England Regional Assembly This, the one for South East England (see the website for the map), which is basically what you would expect, excluding London has its HQ in Guildford, a fine and inspiring building (ha ha) . The members are broadly speaking one local councillor from each district council and various members of the great and good. Essentially they have oversight over a wide variety of quangos and not much else

[ Parent ]
Well, blow me down! (none / 0) (#89)
by thebrix on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 04:32:43 PM EST

Never heard of these before; I suspect they'll be news to a lot of people.

It's a pity that "The Representative Voice Of The Region" is grossly inaccurate; the whole setup sounds suspiciously like the Scottish Grand Committee, a pre-devolution grouping of MPs which talked about anything and everything but had no power ...

[ Parent ]

What does England have? (5.00 / 1) (#84)
by enterfornone on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 02:44:45 PM EST

I believe the Scottish Parliament has quite a few powers, and Northern Ireland recently gained an independant legal system. On the other hand I'm pretty sure that the Welsh Assembly has powers pretty much on par with, for example, the Greater London Assembly.

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]
England wants a parliament. (none / 0) (#91)
by it certainly is on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 04:37:29 PM EST

Are you sure England doesn't have a parliament? I seem to remember that they put one up a few years ago purely for the governance of England; lovely sandstone walls, stunning clock tower, great view of the Thames, etc., etc.

If you're not sure where it is, ask any passing American tourist. They're bound to know.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

Campaign for an English Parliament (none / 0) (#104)
by Wildgoose on Fri Sep 13, 2002 at 03:59:51 AM EST

The Campaign for an English Parliament has many interesting facts and figures illustrating the extent to which the English are disadvantaged by this so-called "Union".

[ Parent ]
Interesting selective gathering of facts (none / 0) (#114)
by thebrix on Sat Sep 14, 2002 at 01:27:43 PM EST

I note the start of one of the arguments:

Education Scotland gets 777 per person. England has only 599 per person (30% less)

Housing Would your like a fair share of the housing budget for England? In Wales they have 106 per head. In England it is 53 (50% less)

Tourism The UK Government spends per head - Northern Ireland 8.25, Wales 4.99, Scotland 3.63 and in England 20 pence.

Overall Spending The total government expenditure in the year 1998/1999 per head in Northern Ireland was 5,450, in Scotland 4,772, in Wales 4,586 and in England 3,897.

Quite apart from those facts having dropped from a blue sky (they should be linked to the source) I would be interested in seeing;

education budgets for Wales and Northern Ireland

housing budgets for Scotland and Northern Ireland

(for example) transport and social services budgets.

If you want to quote facts you quote all the facts for all categories; that Wales and Northern Ireland are missed from the first, but Scotland and Northern Ireland from the second, is immediately suspicious ...

[ Parent ]

Scottish Independence (4.33 / 3) (#53)
by vrai on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 11:29:35 AM EST

Is long overdue, and I hold this view as an Englishman. Mainly because Scotland receives far too much public money per head of population (especially when you take in to account the amount of tax money contributed per average citizen) and its MPs can vote on matters soley affecting England, but not vice-versa.

With falling North Sea oil revenues I don't see a single reason why Scotland needs to be a part of the UK anymore. There would still be free-trade between the two countries (as both would be in the EU) and people would still be able to move freely between them.

I think the solution is to have referendums every few (five? ten?) years on the state of the UK. Everyone gets to vote on whether they want their province to stay with in it, and whether they want any other province removed from it. So if the people of Scotland (for the sake of this example) vote to leave, they leave regardless of the rest of the UK's votes. But, if the people of Scotland vote to stay in, and the majority of the rest of the UK want them out, they get independence whether they like it or not. True democracy in action.

... and Channel 5 would buy the rights! (n/t) (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by gordonjcp on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 11:35:57 AM EST


Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


[ Parent ]
Don't keep revisiting the issue (none / 0) (#62)
by DodgyGeezer on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 12:01:03 PM EST

I disagree about constantly having referendums about independence.  This just breeds instability and a feeling of insecurity.  Look at Quebec: I believe it had a very bad effect there, with a lot of business packing up and moving out of the province due to worries about the future.

[ Parent ]
Independence (5.00 / 2) (#64)
by Ngwenya on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 12:05:45 PM EST

Is long overdue, and I hold this view as an Englishman. Mainly because Scotland receives far too much public money per head of population (especially when you take in to account the amount of tax money contributed per average citizen) and its MPs can vote on matters soley affecting England, but not vice-versa.

If you're referring to the Barnett formula, remember that it only applies to direct public investment (ie, local councils, road building) and so forth. What it doesn't consider, for instance, is defence spending, which is largely concentrated in the South , despite the fact that the military need to be able to defend all of the UK's territory equally. Similarly, London, being the centre of government, has a disproporionate chunk of public money spent on it - in civil service wages. Lastly, remember, all of the UK needs roads, but roads built in sparsely populated areas are going to be per capita much more expensive than highways in densely populated areas. So really, when you consider public spending, remember that it's a tricky thing to even measure, far less pronounce upon the fairness of it.

And as for Scottish MPs voting on English matters, surely the logical thing to do would be to devolve English matters from the UK parliament (eg to regional parliaments within England). Trouble is, the Labour government wanted to do this, but found no real enthusiasm for the plan (in England). You can hardly come back and complain that such an easily forseeable result has now come to pass when a solution was on offer.

BTW, as a Scot, I'm also in favour of independence (though not the SNP, who have more than their fair share of utter clowns). I simply believe that the UK has run its course as a useful polity, and that a reformed, federal European Union is where things are heading, and I'd rather Scotland was a full member of that Union.

--Ng

[ Parent ]

Old canard (5.00 / 3) (#81)
by thebrix on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 02:40:08 PM EST

The first paragraph is an old canard; it comes up every so often in shock, horror articles in the London press along the lines of 'South-East contributes X billion per annum to the United Kingdom and gets little back'. We could argue for ever about the magnitude of what it gets back, but it would be extremely surprising, and even perverse, if there wasn't such an imbalance of payments.

I suspect every country subsidises its less-well-off parts out of necessity, not because of incompetent accounting or some sort of conspiracy; I lived in Norway for some time and, if you thought there was an imbalance here ... !

Bluntly, maintaining civilisation in remote parts of a country is expensive. If people live in remote areas, it's going to cost more to provide and maintain services to (say) 100,000 people in scattered groups with mountains, valleys, rivers, lochs and so on in the way compared to 100,000 people clustered together in a town.

If less-well-off parts weren't subsidised, I suggest you would see what happens in Third World countries; mass migration from country to city, depopulation of rural areas, and huge stresses put on the city infrastructure. (This migration happens to an extent anyway in the United Kingdom).

I suggest that, if England became independent and London managed to hold on to its 'rightful' share, the result would be catastrophe; people would see what was happening and there would be a mass migration from the North of England to the South. As it is the South-East of England is dangerously full of people, with London's population now increasing: I predict that, within 20 years, there'll be a big 'new town' movement to voluntarily move people and jobs out (and much further out than Stevenage, Milton Keynes, Crawley or wherever!)

[ Parent ]

Some rambles (4.00 / 2) (#60)
by DodgyGeezer on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 11:56:31 AM EST

I find a certain irony to the devolution occurring in the UK, at the very same time that nations are coming closer together in the EU as a whole.

Euro-sceptics in the UK worry about political integration in Europe, and increasing federalism, bandying around terms like the "United States of Europe", as if we should all be afraid.  Well, this is what is already happening within the UK itself, just from the opposite direction (through devolution rather than increasing integration).  Other than perhaps a basis in anti-Americanism, I'm not sure what they term is supposed to mean, or why it's bad.  If The Sun harped on about the "Canada of Europe", would it have the same affect?  It seems to me that federalism can work: independent provinces/nations bound together with a government that deals with European wide issues.

With all of the talk of devolution of the kingdoms, principalities and provinces in the UK, isn't it about time that the largest kingdom devolved?  Shouldn't England create it's own Parliament?  (This would be a United States of Britain then! ;))  Isn't it time the English reclaimed their nationality and patriotism from the rascists and bigots and follow the example set by the Scots?  I think that all this talk of regional governments within England just reinforces the common misconception that annoys many Scots (Welsh, N. Irish, etc): that England and Britain are the same thing.  Of course, I can see it now: another uprising by the Cornish! (I saw a report on BBC World recently about them trying to become official bilingual like Wales or certain parts of Scotland.)

Sovereignty Can't Mean Open Borders (2.66 / 3) (#63)
by Baldrson on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 12:03:52 PM EST

The effective open borders of all countries in the West has made a mockery of the concept of sovereignty and citizenship in those countries.  That Scots were handed their "sovereignty" back to them only after the imposition, across all Western countries, of a "human rights" policy that opens borders to foreigners is the ultimate slap in the face to Scots.  To those who claim Scots deserve it because they acted as the point-men of the British Empire: Do recall that the clearances of lowland Scots began in with the drive to union.  This clearance of lowland Scots forced many to flee to the New World (such as my Scotch-Irish ancestors of both Lancaster County, PA Quakers and Appalachia).  Many if not most of these people were being forced off of lands they had held for time immemorial (the "kindly tenants").  I know many if not most people who are predominantly of Scotch Irish ancestry in the United States would jump at the chance to drop their US citizenship and move back to the lowlands of Scotland under terms identical to those of Hitler's "Transfer Agreement" with Jews "returning" them Israel, if Scotland could, unique among countries in the West, actually control its borders.  I'm confident they'd even be willing to accept (and in fact I would recommend in this unlikely hypothetical situation) a separate "Scottish repatriation zone" within which expatriate Scots could gradually repatriate without disrupting Scottish culture too much.  Of course that goes both ways:  Some places in the world, like Nova Scotia, preserved some aspects of Scotish culture more effectively than the homeland precisely because of the freedom of frontier that was so attractive to Scottish character.

Of course, none of this will happen.

The best hope may lie not with repatriation to clear Scots (and other northwest Europeans) out of parts of the planet in which they were used as point-men by globalist elites, but rather dispersing life to new frontiers as yet uncolonized even by ecosystems.

Scots may have no hope for a "homeland" anymore -- except the frontier of life itself.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


Clearances (none / 0) (#70)
by bc on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 12:51:07 PM EST

The clearances weren't committed by the English, they were committed by Scots. All moaning about "scottish culture" being oppressed by those horrible English in the 18th century is just pish.

What's going on here is that there are three cultures in the UK - the English, who occupy all of english speaking scotland, angland, and much of wales, the Gaels, and the Welsh. Those English speaking 'Scots' (which is to say, English) annihilated the Gaels, and would have done so nomatter who was in power.

♥, bc.
[ Parent ]

Coming Home to Roost (none / 0) (#78)
by Baldrson on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 02:20:04 PM EST

From the original article:

The 1707 Act of Union was and still is popularly viewed by Scots as a fiat capitulation by a landed ruling class without a popular mandate, and the resentment of that never abated.

The same holds for the clearances.

What has changed is that "the landed ruling class" is having the shit kicked out of it by the realities of its capitulation to the globalist con.  

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

Really, that won't happen? (none / 0) (#80)
by _cbj on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 02:23:14 PM EST

You mean Scotland won't let in loads of Americans and then close its borders to everyone else? Oh no! It would have been such fun to feel like a moderate Israeli watching the neighbourhood being taken over fundamentalist foreigners. Look, Scotland is a touristry campaign and a football team, nothing more. If anyone plans to move here it had better be because they like it (and there is much to like), not because they want to make it something or think it stands for anything.

Do, however, feel free to visit and buy tartan tat whenever you please, provided you stick to the marked zones along the Royal Mile.

[ Parent ]

Tartan Hats and Royalty (none / 0) (#95)
by Baldrson on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 05:47:34 PM EST

Wasn't the whole tartan hat thing a concoction of Victoria's court?  You don't really have much of the original Scottish culture left back there in Scotland do you?  Just proves my point.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

News that was largely overlooked yesterday... (5.00 / 5) (#65)
by a on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 12:16:07 PM EST

Traditionally-neutral Switzerland finally joined the United Nations. I have no idea why they picked Sept. 11th. However, it is the 190th country to join the organization, which is interesting because the U.N.'s rather large European headquarters have been in Geneva, Switzerland for decades.

Geneva (none / 0) (#87)
by mxmissile on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 03:51:11 PM EST

which is interesting because the U.N.'s rather large European headquarters have been in Geneva

I think the neutrality of Switzerland was one of the reasons the Euro HQ was located there. It is interesting though why they just joined.

[ Parent ]
Oh Hooray! (3.60 / 5) (#71)
by bc on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 01:01:21 PM EST

Let's all rejoice, it's the anniversary of yet another layer of government! Oh Joy, I can hardly contain myself that these jumped up local councillors have added another layer of incompetence, authoritarianism, and moral bossyness (don't spank your child! Don't smoke! Don't drink! WE are your master now) to public life. Hoo-fucking-ray.

Here's the truth about the ridiculous Scottish parliament, as observed by someone who is scottish and has lived here throughout its life: Nobody gives a fucking shit about the parliament. The only people that care are the politicians, who enjoy yet another career option, and yet another opportunity to order you and I around. The entire country is filled with incredible apathy about the SP, and nothing is going to raise it to anything more than a raised eyebrow about the whole affair.

Personally, I am less than enthusiastic about it. It's a sop to the nationalist tendency with just anough power to irritate the life of the average Scot, in addition to the already oppressive weight of local/Westminster/Lords/Europe. Do we really need another?

Given that nobody cares about the stupid thing, it's a real bore to hear politicians and wankers blab on about it, as though more government represents any sort of solution to any problems.

The only reason they are happy is because the SP is the health of the Labour/Conservative/SNP/SSP/Lib Dem megaparty, as well as the great health of the various useless mandarins at the Scottish Office headquarters in Leith.

Fuck 'em all.

♥, bc.

Parent: Everything sucks (none / 0) (#88)
by ocrow on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 03:59:56 PM EST

The topic of this article was to recognise the victory represented by the formation of the S.P.  OK, bc, so the Scottish Parliament sucks.  Fair enough.  What do you want to do about it then?  You'd rather go back to having Scots governed entirely from London?  Would that be a better solution?  I don't see how.  The S.P. has been created. It's here. It provides a measure of self government for the Scots; perhaps not much, but it's a start.  You want more?  OK then, time for more activism and a move to full independence.

You hate having multiple layers of inefficient bureaucratic government that take power away from the people.  That's all well and good.  What do you propose to do about it?  You want to abolish government entirely?  That's fine too, but if you want anyone to take you seriously you'd better propose some more equitable social structures as a replacement.  Are you just complaining or do you actually have something to add to the discussion?


[ Parent ]

You got it right (3.66 / 3) (#101)
by bc on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 11:24:18 PM EST

You can keep your Scottish Parliament. You can keep your idiotic nationalism, your "be governed by us or the English" dichotomy, your stupid love of one crappy, removed and unjust government over another crappy, removed and unjust government.

You know what? People don't give a shit about your government, or your shoices, or your putrid activism. They just want to be left alone for-fucking-once, without being moralised at and told all manner of lies about how the scottish parliament represents this and that and how much closer and "inclusive" it is. Nobody cares! And its right that they don't care: your government is useless, and it is not a question of making it "better" and becoming an activist, such measures only make it worse, because all measures seem to involve YET MORE GOVERNMENT that nobody wants or has asked for.

God, if only you would all just dissappear. All of you. Scottish Parliament to Europe. People can provide "equitable social structures" on their own account without the need for coercion by your government.

♥, bc.
[ Parent ]

But what ARE you suggesting? (4.00 / 2) (#108)
by Ngwenya on Fri Sep 13, 2002 at 05:16:16 AM EST

God, if only you would all just dissappear. All of you. Scottish Parliament to Europe. People can provide "equitable social structures" on their own account without the need for coercion by your government.

Who are you talking to? I'm completely in the dark as to what you're advocating. The dismantling of the state as a political entity? Libertarianism? Anarchy?

Is it your point that government is inherently coercive? If so, fine - it's true enough, but you need to do a lot of convincing that something else can else will provide similar benefits with less coercion. Can you actually prove that equitable social structures form autonomously?

And, I'm sorry, but the human race and the social structures evolved over millenia are not going to disappear because you don't like being told lies by this politician or that civil servant.

I don't get it. It sounds like a whiny rant, veering close to ad hominem silliness.

--Ng

[ Parent ]

Scottish Imperialism (4.00 / 4) (#73)
by the womble on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 01:44:33 PM EST

300 years of cultural intrusion and foreign rule must rate fairly highly

Scotland joined a union with England voluntarily, on equal terms. In fact for many years the Scots have recieved better terms in the union than the English:

  1. They have seats in the UK parliment out of proportion to their population.
  2. Thanks to develoution Scotish members of parliment can vote on issues that affect only England while English MPs can not vote on Scottish issues.
  3. They get a blantantly unfair share of UK givernment spending.

memories of conflicts and imperialism are very long indeed.

This implies that Scotland was a colony of the empire. In fact, as anyone (like myself) from a former British colony can tell you the Scots were, if anything, more enthusiastic imperialists than the English.

Unfortunately not true (none / 0) (#79)
by thebrix on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 02:21:26 PM EST

It was certainly not on equal terms, and there was much coercion involved; by the (already low) standards of the day the Scottish Parliament, which voted in favour, was unrepresentative and corrupt. This is a stunningly under-reported issue: the definitive source is The Letters of Malachi Magrowther by Sir Walter Scott, which are both tough going and extremely hard to find. A modern source is The Scottish Nation by Tom Devine, which is brilliant.

On the other points:

1. True at the moment, but being cut down in time for the next General Election (58 out of 659 is about pro rata);

2. True, but one could also argue that, as the split of devolved and reserved powers is largely arbitrary, English members have a vote on Scottish matters which they should not have. I am all-or-nothing regarding independence; the current halfway house is unsatisfactory and will probably eventually break down;

3. I'll answer this old canard in another post; the short answer is 'but what if it were not?'

You're right about imperialism though, as Tom Devine makes clear ;)

[ Parent ]

Eh (5.00 / 2) (#102)
by bc on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 11:32:48 PM EST

Why are you applying the democratic standards of today to an event in 1707? Judge it by the standards of its own day, you'll find it was perfectly legal and "democratic" by those standards. Nobody was diddled, and the scots public disliked the idea so much, that they did precisely nothing about it. People make slaves of themselves, it was always in their power to refuse to be governed, but they submitted, as did later generations. perhaps this explains the original scottish shame and chip on shoulder, but don't go blaming it on the English. The Scots were the ones who truly believed in the Imperial project, the zealots of the whole affair.

♥, bc.
[ Parent ]
Reading things not there ... (none / 0) (#105)
by thebrix on Fri Sep 13, 2002 at 04:29:08 AM EST

It would have been helpful if you had actually read the initial post before displaying your prejudices; I was not applying the standards of now to 1707 and there was no blaming the English. (In fact, the principal mover of union was the Duke of Hamilton, a Scottish nobleman; there have been persistent suggestions that he was 'bought' but no hard evidence that I am aware of as all the extent information derives from the memory of Lockhart of Carnwrath, a chronicler of the times).

It is correct that election petitions from the Scottish people were almost uniformly against; however, the Union was very cleverly sold thereafter as a device to get out of the financial problems caused by the Darien crisis (an episode in the 1690s curiously similar to the dot-com bubble where there was wild speculation, right up to Scottish Treasury levels, in land in Nicaragua which turned out to be worthless). Then, as someone pointed out elsewhere, new markets and opportunities for free trade were exploited.

[ Parent ]

Scottish women (4.33 / 3) (#77)
by aonifer on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 02:00:53 PM EST

That accent drives me wild. Having their own Parliament makes me want them even more.

The looks... (none / 0) (#90)
by MSBob on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 04:35:56 PM EST

The accent's alright the problem is within the looks. I still can't shake off the impression that most Scottish women look like the have a mild case of the Down syndrome.
I don't mind paying taxes, they buy me civilization.

[ Parent ]
Perhaps if you tried *outside* Glasgow (nt) (5.00 / 1) (#97)
by _cbj on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 06:45:27 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Hehe (none / 0) (#99)
by aonifer on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 07:26:14 PM EST

The one Scottish chick I know is from Glasgow. ;)  She seems pretty hot to me, but my view might be tainted by the fact that she reads "bukes".

[ Parent ]
Poll comments (none / 0) (#86)
by number33 on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 03:19:03 PM EST

The poll, in my opinion, does not reflect the distinctiveness with which each nation faces and emerges from its trials.  Your article makes some good points, but they are far from being any kind of law about societies.

My view of the UK as an outsider (none / 0) (#93)
by sanity on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 04:47:00 PM EST

I was born in Ireland, but lived in Edinburgh, Scotland for 4 years, and London for a year - and travelled around the UK quite a bit during that time.

I like the Scottish, they are - for the most part - smart pleasant people, although they do seem to have something of an inferiority complex when it comes to the English. Perhaps that is changing now after devolution.

I also like Londoners, they may seem rather cold, but that is just a response to having 15 million people in such a small area, and Londoners are actually nice friendly people when you get to know them.

I am not as fond as some people from the north of England. Not all of them, but of all the jingoistic thugs I have met from the UK, almost all were from the North of England.

Generally, I prefer Scotland to Ireland - the Irish are too resentful of success and ambition for my tastes.

n much t, really hardly worth looking at (none / 0) (#98)
by _cbj on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 06:49:23 PM EST

Generally, I prefer Scotland to Ireland - the Irish are too resentful of success and ambition for my tastes.
Ah, see I never had that problem.

[ Parent ]
hey you lived in the uk! (none / 0) (#103)
by techwolf on Fri Sep 13, 2002 at 03:15:34 AM EST

then maybe you can answer a question for me. I had a buddy who told me that some people live right on the river on what would basicly be called a houseboat, or at least something to that effect. do londoners really do that? just curious to know if he was full of shit or not (I would assume in such a small area that people would but i want to know for sure)


"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson
[ Parent ]

london (none / 0) (#106)
by endah on Fri Sep 13, 2002 at 05:03:37 AM EST

Some people live in houseboats along the Thames.

Not really much to get excited about.

(I live in London)

[ Parent ]
Quite often (none / 0) (#115)
by thebrix on Sat Sep 14, 2002 at 01:33:37 PM EST

Yes, as there are a fair number of canals reopening after being filled in or otherwise neglected for years.

Have a look at this engineering marvel, for one. (Another site).

[ Parent ]

Dublin V. Edinburgh (none / 0) (#109)
by daragh on Fri Sep 13, 2002 at 07:51:55 AM EST

I just moved to Edinburgh from Dublin two months ago and I have to say I love the place. It's like a good version of Dublin with extras. First of all it's beautiful, I think one of the most beautiful cities I've ever been in. Second, the natives are very friendly, you can go up and talk to anyone in a bar and they don't look at you as if you have three heads, an action which is becomming commonplace in Dublin unfortunately. Third, it's easy to get around. The only city with worse transport than Dublin is Calcutta, allegedly. If you've ever lived in a city where it takes two hours to do a four mile journey, you'll appreciate even a reasonable level of traffic flow. And finally I can afford to live comfortably here: prices in Dublin were getting out of hand and a third of my salary was going on rent alone. It's not cheap in Edinburgh and I'm not particularly well paid (I work at the University as a researcher) but it's a lot more manageable than Dublin. So I think I'll stay for a while ;)

No work.
[ Parent ]

Sept 12th (2.00 / 1) (#96)
by kholmes on Thu Sep 12, 2002 at 06:02:36 PM EST

A little late, eh?

Perhaps this should serve as a lesson on putting date-specific articles into the queue.

If you treat people as most people treat things and treat things as most people treat people, you might be a Randian.

And in other news | 117 comments (88 topical, 29 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!