Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Actually I don't think you'll find many Scots saying ancient history re 66, we just get sick of seeing the reruns. Again and again and again. I wonder if (OK it's a big if) it'd been Scotland instead of England it would get quite as much coverage ... I suspect I know the answer to that one.
And no we don't mention the 45, why would be - it would make as much sense as you mentioning the English civil war, in which the Scots played a big part. It was a civil / religious war in Scotland as well, not just a Scotland vs England war like you seem to imply.
BTW The only bigot on this thread is yourself from what I've seen so far. FFS you got beat at rugby in a rubbish game, deal with it.
There you go, Pvt Spud showing his intelect with a deeply considered argument. I know 5 year olds who have got beyond tis, tisn't and "no you are an idiot type" arguments.
Go and ask a grown up to explain the issues to you and then ask an officer if you are allowed to think.
There you go, Pvt Spud showing his intelect with a deeply considered argument. I know 5 year olds who have got beyond tis, tisn't and "no you are an idiot type" arguments.
Go and ask a grown up to explain the issues to you and then ask an officer if you are allowed to think.
Thought you intimated you would respond with something intelligent?
Waiting........................
There you go, Pvt Spud showing his intelect with a deeply considered argument. I know 5 year olds who have got beyond tis, tisn't and "no you are an idiot type" arguments.
Go and ask a grown up to explain the issues to you and then ask an officer if you are allowed to think.
And that stops you bringing it up every time a world cup comes around does it?
Don't think you'll find many Scots bringing up the 45 rebellion. Yeah, history is relevant and it's not uncommon for a nations national anthem to mention some important historical event in that nations history. It's not allowed or common in England is it?
How many times has God Save the Queen been changed? I especially liked the version that stated crush all rebellious Scots ...
Clearly you're the one venting the hatred you're so quick to criticise in others. maybe you should go take a look in the mirror.
When we mention 66 you say ancient history. We have every right to mention it as we did win it once and we would love to get back to those glory days, much as you would like to see Celtic win the Champions league again and you have every right to mention it.
You then say the Scots never mention the 45 and in the next para you mention the version of "The Queen" that was written about the 45 and dropped shortly after, certainly dropped before it became the UK anthem and yet it is that verse that the Scots object to time and time again when they are asked why they want a seperate anthem.
There is a vast difference between singing the official version as published and singing the bastardised version.
Once again I see the Scots on this board point blank refusing to see the bigotry inherent in the behaviour of their countrymen and willing to defend it no matter how illogical and ill reasoned the argument.
45 correct. That and other historical events for the Scots and other nations for that matter are apparently still relevant.
Don't think you'll find many Scots bringing up the 45 rebellion. Yeah, history is relevant and it's not uncommon for a nations national anthem to mention some important historical event in that nations history. It's not allowed or common in England is it?
Bastardisation. The Scots do not sing flower of Scotland as written. They add a couple of lines "against who" and "bastard" to emphasise their point. It seems to me that the singers are venting their hatred of the English rather than showing any pride in Scotland.
How many times has God Save the Queen been changed? I especially liked the version that stated crush all rebellious Scots ...
Clearly you're the one venting the hatred you're so quick to criticise in others. maybe you should go take a look in the mirror.
Leave a comment: