Reply to: Scotland 15 England 9

[Alf W]

Good to see that the old CUK English vs Scottish row can still be triggered with such ease and has lost none of its vigour.



I half wish the government would bring back fox-hunting so we could have that one again as well.

What does everyone think about all these FTVs?

[Moscow Mule]

Yes well if the middle order hadn't been off worrying sheep there would have been no need!!

Selling their soul to the ITL

[shaunbhoy]

And that is a total disgrace I think we got 3 of our players out of the crowd.

Yes well if the middle order hadn't been off worrying sheep there would have been no need!!

[tay]

and at cricket....by the kiwis!

And that is a total disgrace I think we got 3 of our players out of the crowd.

[oracleslave]

FFS you got beat at rugby in a rubbish game, deal with it.

and at cricket....by the kiwis!

[snaw]

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.

[shaunbhoy]

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.

intellect

Smashing!!

[sasguru]

In defense of the Lone Gunner.. he doesnt actually know anything about rugby, so trying to discuss a match with him is a little pointless.

much of anything

[tay]

In defense of the Lone Gunner.. he doesnt actually know anything about rugby, so trying to discuss a match with him is a little pointless.

[shaunbhoy]

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.

Need a hand wiping that froth up TLG?

[The Lone Gunman]

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.

[shaunbhoy]

Blah blah blah bleat drone dribble.etc.

Thought you intimated you would respond with something intelligent?
Waiting........................

[The Lone Gunman]

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.

[shaunbhoy]

When someone gives me something intelligent to respond to I will,

With what? Another of your "searing" ripostes?


Like being savaged by a dead sheep indeed.


Why not get together with churchill or troll or one of the other racist xenophobes and see if between you some nugget of value might be teased out?

[snaw]

66 England world cup win. Every time it is mentioned we English get told it is ancient history.

And that stops you bringing it up every time a world cup comes around does it?

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.