Ok, I've pondered it. And its tosh. London's image in particular still benefits from what most would regard as the greatest Olympics ever to this day.
This current English team seems far more self aware, media savvy and socially conscious than any of their predecessors that I can recall. Don't know if that makes them any more likely to win but it does change the team's image and for the better. Similarly, although I still think Southgate is a very ordinary football manager he is clearly a clever, well spoken and reasonable man whom its difficult to dislike. As a face for the nation they do England proud.
In 2012 ‘London’ was supposed to provide a progressive and unifying event for the ‘nation’. Unless you think without it Yes would have won in 2014 and Leave would have scored a landslide in 2016, it’s unifying effect was the square root of f.a. The event’s main function nowadays seems to be a safe space for centrists to nostalgise about a golden moment before all the recent and current unpleasantness.
I’d imagine where people reside would be very much connected to which olympics people think is the greatest.
Southgate has gone down in my estimation after his ‘this island/country/nation’ and recalling the wartime spirit guff. Shows how deeply it’s embedded in the English psyche.
It is because it’s part of the national psyche. Why shouldn’t it be? Just like *every* other country tells similar stories. We can’t get rid of that any more than Bannockburn can be removed from the Scottish national psyche, or 1916 from the Irish, or 1789 from the French, or 1776 from the American. Yes, Bannockburn is not as emphasised as it once was in your part of the world, but it’s *still* the central theme of the best known Scottish sporting anthem.
It’s not just WW2 either, Elizabeth I’s speech at Tilbury before the Armada, “England Expects”, it’s all part of the narrative - resistance to Continental domination. Similarly the Scottish psyche has a large element of resistance to English domination. I don’t like either, and I hate GSTQ, but we never had a revolution against foreign occupation or feudal domination (at least not one that stuck) that forms the basis of practically every other country’s national psyche - including your own.
Covid restrictions will probably need to be reimposed across England after summer but the government may again delay doing so, a Conservative MP helping lead a Commons inquiry into ministers’ handling of the pandemic has warned.
Dr Dan Poulter, who has also been working on the NHS frontline since the outbreak began, said “challenging mutations” of the virus would probably emerge and set back a “return to normality” until at least 2022.
Vaccines minister Nadhim Zahawi reveals the Govt will publish new covid guidelines this week to wear masks on busy trains. "There will be very clear guidance that you'll be expected to wear masks on crowded carriages". This appears to be a change of plan. @TimesRadio
Except it’s not a “change of plan” at all.
It’s re-affirming what the government actually said last week - as opposed to how the media reported it - that the plan was to replace legislation with guidance from 19th July.
Did Boris mention replacing legislation with guidance in his press conference at all a week ago ? I don't remember it
Yep:
We will end the 1 metre plus rule on social distancing, and the legal obligation to wear a face covering, although guidance will suggest where you might choose to do so, especially when cases are rising, and where you come into contact with people you don’t normally meet in enclosed places, such as obviously crowded public transport.
That's the problem with English: it is far more nuanced than most other languages, although some may express similar distinctions with pitch and tone. I'm hoping tomorrow that Johnson will clarify whether wearing a mask when sitting alone in a car is eccentric, idiotic or barmy.
Is English really far more nuanced than most other languages? I'd find that very surprising. Do you have a source for this?
Ok, I've pondered it. And its tosh. London's image in particular still benefits from what most would regard as the greatest Olympics ever to this day.
This current English team seems far more self aware, media savvy and socially conscious than any of their predecessors that I can recall. Don't know if that makes them any more likely to win but it does change the team's image and for the better. Similarly, although I still think Southgate is a very ordinary football manager he is clearly a clever, well spoken and reasonable man whom its difficult to dislike. As a face for the nation they do England proud.
In 2012 ‘London’ was supposed to provide a progressive and unifying event for the ‘nation’. Unless you think without it Yes would have won in 2014 and Leave would have scored a landslide in 2016, it’s unifying effect was the square root of f.a. The event’s main function nowadays seems to be a safe space for centrists to nostalgise about a golden moment before all the recent and current unpleasantness.
I’d imagine where people reside would be very much connected to which olympics people think is the greatest.
Southgate has gone down in my estimation after his ‘this island/country/nation’ and recalling the wartime spirit guff. Shows how deeply it’s embedded in the English psyche.
And Scottish Nationalists, of course, never adopt any ‘warrior spirit’ mentality vis a vis the English? They don’t ever reference, say, William Wallace or Braveheart? Or Robert the Bruce or ‘the 45’ or any of that?
You and your various manifestations have literally referred to these things, events and people many more times than I have on this place. That’s your lot’s prism, not mine.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
Thank you for proving my point.
That Scottish Nationalists are not driven so much by love of Scotland as by hatred of the English, fine
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Re: the “FairPlay” debate. “British/English FairPlay” clearly is an trait/stereotype associated with the British/English. Hence “this is the famous English sense of fair play”* so often being a line employed by foreigners in literature and real life. It is something that it is often noticeable that other nations often seem to aspire to as an ideal.
Of course the other widely observed well known English trait is hypocrisy.
Vaccines minister Nadhim Zahawi reveals the Govt will publish new covid guidelines this week to wear masks on busy trains. "There will be very clear guidance that you'll be expected to wear masks on crowded carriages". This appears to be a change of plan. @TimesRadio
Except it’s not a “change of plan” at all.
It’s re-affirming what the government actually said last week - as opposed to how the media reported it - that the plan was to replace legislation with guidance from 19th July.
Did Boris mention replacing legislation with guidance in his press conference at all a week ago ? I don't remember it
Yep:
We will end the 1 metre plus rule on social distancing, and the legal obligation to wear a face covering, although guidance will suggest where you might choose to do so, especially when cases are rising, and where you come into contact with people you don’t normally meet in enclosed places, such as obviously crowded public transport.
That's the problem with English: it is far more nuanced than most other languages, although some may express similar distinctions with pitch and tone. I'm hoping tomorrow that Johnson will clarify whether wearing a mask when sitting alone in a car is eccentric, idiotic or barmy.
Is English really far more nuanced than most other languages? I'd find that very surprising. Do you have a source for this?
English is the language most foreigners find easiest to learn, so I'd guess not.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
The vast majority of Scottish Unionists will not be bothered who wins tonight or will wish England well.
You can count on one hand the number of Scottish Nationalists who will not be supporting Italy tonight however as the National headline shows
Squinting at that screen grab, there appears to be a direct quote from Southgate:
"People have tried to invade us and we've had the courage to hold that back."
The loony left interpretation of British (or, rather, English history, because they regard the other elements of the UK as oppressed colonies and cheerlead for their nationalisms,) is the mirror image of the far right's. They want to erase anything positive that we ever did and just drone on endlessly about racism and the crimes of empire; the far right wants to do gaudy oompah and sweep all the problems under the carpet.
If anyone says something positive about England then of course they are going to moan about it. They don't think there's anything positive that can be legitimately said.
Holding the invasions back has less to do with courage than with the silver sea which serves us in the office of a wall or as a moat defensive to a house, against the envy of less happier lands. His remark is incredibly stupid given that his team is English not British, and by invoking the bulldog spirit pretty much guarantees that there will be markedly more racial violence from Ther Lads tonight then there would be anyway. A horrible man.
We already have an English nationalist government in Westminster
No we don't.
If an actual English nationalist administration ever came to power in London then item one on the agenda would be the dissolution of the Union.
Given that we do have an English nationalist government we can see that is not the case. For all kinds of historical reasons, the Union gives English nationalists a level of international weight, prestige and significance its dissolution would remove.
Actually it doesn't, we ceased to be a superpower when we gave India independence.
England would still be a medium ranked power in or outside the Union, it is Scotland and Wales who would go from medium ranked power to small, largely insignificant power (albeit the Scots at least might try to regain that by rejoining the EU, in which case they would not be seeking full complete independence anyway).
However even England would still fall from about the 5th to 7th largest economy if the Union ended so we are all stronger with it
The UK comes with an historical legacy and significant soft power. No English nationalist politician would voluntarily give that up.
Soft power? Oh, you mean like all the Eurovision victories
Interesting. I got irritated by something Southgate said today that I felt was a bit Wokey.
Probably means he's judged it right?
If he’s pissing off both sides he’s doing something right.
He has the perfect tone for a LOTO who would win an election. Problem for Starmer is that any attempt to copy this would be attacked publicly from inside the LP and a lot of voters wouldn't believe it was genuine. To neutralise both of these problems Starmer needs to pick a fight with factions in his own party which he can win and which results in a big purge (including some MPs).
We already have an English nationalist government in Westminster
No we don't.
If an actual English nationalist administration ever came to power in London then item one on the agenda would be the dissolution of the Union.
Given that we do have an English nationalist government we can see that is not the case. For all kinds of historical reasons, the Union gives English nationalists a level of international weight, prestige and significance its dissolution would remove.
Actually it doesn't, we ceased to be a superpower when we gave India independence.
England would still be a medium ranked power in or outside the Union, it is Scotland and Wales who would go from medium ranked power to small, largely insignificant power (albeit the Scots at least might try to regain that by rejoining the EU, in which case they would not be seeking full complete independence anyway).
However even England would still fall from about the 5th to 7th largest economy if the Union ended so we are all stronger with it
“Medium ranked power” is not how English nationalists see themselves.
Because it's not what we are.
The UK or England is a major power. Of approximately 200 countries in the globe we are in the Top 5 by almost any independent metric for power: economically, defence expenditure etc.
The UK considering itself a middle nation is like a surgeon considering himself a middle earner.
We are not a major power and we have not been since the end of the British Empire and Indian independence, that is just reality.
The only major powers in the world now are the US and China and at a push Russia and India too.
We are an upper end medium ranked power, which for an island of our size is nothing to be ashamed of
The UK is arguably more powerful than either Russia or India, but either way they're major powers too.
We absolutely are a major power which is why we are America's most important ally and someone they always want on side when they go to war.
Heck Ed Miliband managed to prevent Barack Obama from going to war. You think that would happen for almost any other nation on the planet?
We are in the top 2.5% of countries on the planet for power. As I said claiming that's not major is like claiming that a well off lawyer, or doctor, or businessman is not "rich" because he's not Jeff Bezos.
dream on Philip, we are well down the pecking order and would be no chance against Russia or India or France and probably a good few others.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
You can both laugh all you like. My views are supported by polling on this.
There's a certain form of Lefty who likes to decry any form of national culture or character because they see it as a segue to anachronistic and chauvinistic attitudes. Thus, when you say "this is a British trait" or "British values include this" they love to say, "like most other nations" or "no, I don't agree with that one".
It's all rather pathetic really. A culture is defined by the mores, attitudes and spirit that characteristics it in aggregate and gives it its essence, in conjunction with its geography, weather, and heritage. Each nation has a unique cocktail of those. And they are always definitely a Thing - recognisable and definable. This is ours.
You can sledge it but you don't get to wipe it.
I'm fond of things like the traditionally British sense of irony, and I'm not trying to be difficult here and recognise the emotional power underlying what you say, but I'm resistant to the concept of culture defined by a country, because it interferes with another important value, of individual freedom to be different from one's neighbours. If one's too insistent that the British are like this and (say) the Afghans are like that, one ends up in the same camp as jihadis insisting that you have to behave in a certain way as otherwise you're unpatriotic (or worse). At a more trivial level, you get silly generalisations saying that the Germans have no sense of humour or Americans are all capitalists, which plants the seed of racism. That's why leftists (and not only leftists) tend to be wary of this sort of thing, even when they're positive ("All Kenyans are great athletes").
If you qualify it by saying "most people in X" etc., don't claim that this is unique to X, and don't deny the right of people in X to be different, then of course nobody sensible would object.
Ok, I've pondered it. And its tosh. London's image in particular still benefits from what most would regard as the greatest Olympics ever to this day.
This current English team seems far more self aware, media savvy and socially conscious than any of their predecessors that I can recall. Don't know if that makes them any more likely to win but it does change the team's image and for the better. Similarly, although I still think Southgate is a very ordinary football manager he is clearly a clever, well spoken and reasonable man whom its difficult to dislike. As a face for the nation they do England proud.
In 2012 ‘London’ was supposed to provide a progressive and unifying event for the ‘nation’. Unless you think without it Yes would have won in 2014 and Leave would have scored a landslide in 2016, it’s unifying effect was the square root of f.a. The event’s main function nowadays seems to be a safe space for centrists to nostalgise about a golden moment before all the recent and current unpleasantness.
I’d imagine where people reside would be very much connected to which olympics people think is the greatest.
Southgate has gone down in my estimation after his ‘this island/country/nation’ and recalling the wartime spirit guff. Shows how deeply it’s embedded in the English psyche.
And Scottish Nationalists, of course, never adopt any ‘warrior spirit’ mentality vis a vis the English? They don’t ever reference, say, William Wallace or Braveheart? Or Robert the Bruce or ‘the 45’ or any of that?
You and your various manifestations have literally referred to these things, events and people many more times than I have on this place. That’s your lot’s prism, not mine.
Lol
Flower of Scotland:
O Flower of Scotland, When will we see Your like again, That fought and died for, Your wee bit Hill and Glen, And stood against him (against who?), Proud Edward's Army, And sent him homeward, To think again.
Tho I guess you can forgive that, seeing as it was written in the mists of antiquity, back in /checks notes\ 1993
We already have an English nationalist government in Westminster
No we don't.
If an actual English nationalist administration ever came to power in London then item one on the agenda would be the dissolution of the Union.
Given that we do have an English nationalist government we can see that is not the case. For all kinds of historical reasons, the Union gives English nationalists a level of international weight, prestige and significance its dissolution would remove.
Actually it doesn't, we ceased to be a superpower when we gave India independence.
England would still be a medium ranked power in or outside the Union, it is Scotland and Wales who would go from medium ranked power to small, largely insignificant power (albeit the Scots at least might try to regain that by rejoining the EU, in which case they would not be seeking full complete independence anyway).
However even England would still fall from about the 5th to 7th largest economy if the Union ended so we are all stronger with it
The UK comes with an historical legacy and significant soft power. No English nationalist politician would voluntarily give that up.
Soft power? Oh, you mean like all the Eurovision victories
Yes, you’re right, we do do very well in Eurovision
Ok, I've pondered it. And its tosh. London's image in particular still benefits from what most would regard as the greatest Olympics ever to this day.
This current English team seems far more self aware, media savvy and socially conscious than any of their predecessors that I can recall. Don't know if that makes them any more likely to win but it does change the team's image and for the better. Similarly, although I still think Southgate is a very ordinary football manager he is clearly a clever, well spoken and reasonable man whom its difficult to dislike. As a face for the nation they do England proud.
In 2012 ‘London’ was supposed to provide a progressive and unifying event for the ‘nation’. Unless you think without it Yes would have won in 2014 and Leave would have scored a landslide in 2016, it’s unifying effect was the square root of f.a. The event’s main function nowadays seems to be a safe space for centrists to nostalgise about a golden moment before all the recent and current unpleasantness.
I’d imagine where people reside would be very much connected to which olympics people think is the greatest.
Southgate has gone down in my estimation after his ‘this island/country/nation’ and recalling the wartime spirit guff. Shows how deeply it’s embedded in the English psyche.
And Scottish Nationalists, of course, never adopt any ‘warrior spirit’ mentality vis a vis the English? They don’t ever reference, say, William Wallace or Braveheart? Or Robert the Bruce or ‘the 45’ or any of that?
Getting your viewpoint on Scotland from dodgy fictional Hollywood films says it all.
Ok, I've pondered it. And its tosh. London's image in particular still benefits from what most would regard as the greatest Olympics ever to this day.
This current English team seems far more self aware, media savvy and socially conscious than any of their predecessors that I can recall. Don't know if that makes them any more likely to win but it does change the team's image and for the better. Similarly, although I still think Southgate is a very ordinary football manager he is clearly a clever, well spoken and reasonable man whom its difficult to dislike. As a face for the nation they do England proud.
In 2012 ‘London’ was supposed to provide a progressive and unifying event for the ‘nation’. Unless you think without it Yes would have won in 2014 and Leave would have scored a landslide in 2016, it’s unifying effect was the square root of f.a. The event’s main function nowadays seems to be a safe space for centrists to nostalgise about a golden moment before all the recent and current unpleasantness.
I’d imagine where people reside would be very much connected to which olympics people think is the greatest.
Southgate has gone down in my estimation after his ‘this island/country/nation’ and recalling the wartime spirit guff. Shows how deeply it’s embedded in the English psyche.
And Scottish Nationalists, of course, never adopt any ‘warrior spirit’ mentality vis a vis the English? They don’t ever reference, say, William Wallace or Braveheart? Or Robert the Bruce or ‘the 45’ or any of that?
No. It's you who do that.
Remember how meh the reaction was to the vandalism of the Bruce statue at Bannockburn, and compare and contrast to ditto for Mr Churchill's statue etc.
Ok, I've pondered it. And its tosh. London's image in particular still benefits from what most would regard as the greatest Olympics ever to this day.
This current English team seems far more self aware, media savvy and socially conscious than any of their predecessors that I can recall. Don't know if that makes them any more likely to win but it does change the team's image and for the better. Similarly, although I still think Southgate is a very ordinary football manager he is clearly a clever, well spoken and reasonable man whom its difficult to dislike. As a face for the nation they do England proud.
In 2012 ‘London’ was supposed to provide a progressive and unifying event for the ‘nation’. Unless you think without it Yes would have won in 2014 and Leave would have scored a landslide in 2016, it’s unifying effect was the square root of f.a. The event’s main function nowadays seems to be a safe space for centrists to nostalgise about a golden moment before all the recent and current unpleasantness.
I’d imagine where people reside would be very much connected to which olympics people think is the greatest.
Southgate has gone down in my estimation after his ‘this island/country/nation’ and recalling the wartime spirit guff. Shows how deeply it’s embedded in the English psyche.
And Scottish Nationalists, of course, never adopt any ‘warrior spirit’ mentality vis a vis the English? They don’t ever reference, say, William Wallace or Braveheart? Or Robert the Bruce or ‘the 45’ or any of that?
Getting your viewpoint on Scotland from dodgy fictional Hollywood films says it all.
No, we get it from listening to the lyrics of “Flower of Scotland” every time we play you at rugby etc…
Re: the “FairPlay” debate. “British/English FairPlay” clearly is an trait/stereotype associated with the British/English. Hence “this is the famous English sense of fair play”* so often being a line employed by foreigners in literature and real life. It is something that it is often noticeable that other nations often seem to aspire to as an ideal.
Of course the other widely observed well known English trait is hypocrisy.
The Italians brought it up as recently as this week. Referencing England’s penalty against Denmark
Ok, I've pondered it. And its tosh. London's image in particular still benefits from what most would regard as the greatest Olympics ever to this day.
This current English team seems far more self aware, media savvy and socially conscious than any of their predecessors that I can recall. Don't know if that makes them any more likely to win but it does change the team's image and for the better. Similarly, although I still think Southgate is a very ordinary football manager he is clearly a clever, well spoken and reasonable man whom its difficult to dislike. As a face for the nation they do England proud.
In 2012 ‘London’ was supposed to provide a progressive and unifying event for the ‘nation’. Unless you think without it Yes would have won in 2014 and Leave would have scored a landslide in 2016, it’s unifying effect was the square root of f.a. The event’s main function nowadays seems to be a safe space for centrists to nostalgise about a golden moment before all the recent and current unpleasantness.
I’d imagine where people reside would be very much connected to which olympics people think is the greatest.
Southgate has gone down in my estimation after his ‘this island/country/nation’ and recalling the wartime spirit guff. Shows how deeply it’s embedded in the English psyche.
And Scottish Nationalists, of course, never adopt any ‘warrior spirit’ mentality vis a vis the English? They don’t ever reference, say, William Wallace or Braveheart? Or Robert the Bruce or ‘the 45’ or any of that?
You and your various manifestations have literally referred to these things, events and people many more times than I have on this place. That’s your lot’s prism, not mine.
Lol
Flower of Scotland:
O Flower of Scotland, When will we see Your like again, That fought and died for, Your wee bit Hill and Glen, And stood against him (against who?), Proud Edward's Army, And sent him homeward, To think again.
Tho I guess you can forgive that, seeing as it was written in the mists of antiquity, back in /checks notes\ 1993
Very much favoured by Unionist Edinburgh rugger buggers. No, I don't understand either.
On the culture stuff, we do import - unthinkingly - the latest trends and fights from the USA, often within days, but what I like about the UK is that we look for compromise and common ground on most things. We also have a good nose for what represents fair play.
I've found the last 12 months extremely stressful because I detest the quasi-marxist attacks on our culture, history and heritage but I've felt at risk of being painted for racism if I speak out against it, so have quietly fumed in the background - instead trying to work out how to best combat it anonymously. I've also hated the framing of equality debate around the relative positions of "groups" in a hierarchy, with the eye of suspicion on all of us in the wrong place, and have felt under criticism just because of who I am.
However, at the same time, I have tried to reach out to colleagues to try and see if I've missed something in the past and ensure they feel more included and as patriotic as I am. Invariably I've found those opinions reasonable, measured and varied and nothing like the Woke activists portray - I've tried to find areas of common ground (be it in Christianity, sport, engineering and history) and build on that instead. To me, that's Britishness. We are not Americans.
I know that some people will try and exploit any England victory politically today, there are already signs of it in various parts of the media, but it shouldn't and won't be about anything other than national unity, so I know they will fail.
Why? Because we won't let them - we're British.
I think the first and last paragraphs are what let's you down. There is nothing uniquely British about seeking consensus and fairness.
Oh, I'd say it's absolutely a British trait.
Your comment lets you down.
Not just me. My wife has just fallen off her chair laughing at you.
You can both laugh all you like. My views are supported by polling on this.
There's a certain form of Lefty who likes to decry any form of national culture or character because they see it as a segue to anachronistic and chauvinistic attitudes. Thus, when you say "this is a British trait" or "British values include this" they love to say, "like most other nations" or "no, I don't agree with that one".
It's all rather pathetic really. A culture is defined by the mores, attitudes and spirit that characteristics it in aggregate and gives it its essence, in conjunction with its geography, weather, and heritage. Each nation has a unique cocktail of those. And they are always definitely a Thing - recognisable and definable. This is ours.
You can sledge it but you don't get to wipe it.
I agree that most of the rest of the world would certainly identify pomposity and arrogance as a definite British Thing.
In my experience Britain is famous for three things around the world, none of them particularly justified although all may contain a grain of truth: Terrible food Miserable weather Good sense of humour
Are the British seen as especially arrogant? Lots of people do think that British believe they are superior to everyone else, so maybe yes.
Ok, I've pondered it. And its tosh. London's image in particular still benefits from what most would regard as the greatest Olympics ever to this day.
This current English team seems far more self aware, media savvy and socially conscious than any of their predecessors that I can recall. Don't know if that makes them any more likely to win but it does change the team's image and for the better. Similarly, although I still think Southgate is a very ordinary football manager he is clearly a clever, well spoken and reasonable man whom its difficult to dislike. As a face for the nation they do England proud.
I don't know if they are media savvy, more like the people advising them.
Remember only a few months ago we had Foden and Greenwood breaking covid rules in Iceland to shag some local ladies behind the backs of their partners, one of which was pregnant. Kyle Walker repeatedly ignored covid restrictions, even when his manager's mother had just died of covid. Grealish, banned for drink driving, repeated partying during lockdown....Trippier, well known for some of his wild antics and massively unprofessional like chain smoking...Stones cheated on the mother of his young child.... Maguire, criminal conviction for fighting in Greece.....
Apart from disputed Greek fisticuffs, which of that list disqualifies any England player from a seat in the Cabinet?
They are cheeks of the same arse and show how far England has fallen. Writ large in that paragraph is the state of England.
We already have an English nationalist government in Westminster
No we don't.
If an actual English nationalist administration ever came to power in London then item one on the agenda would be the dissolution of the Union.
Given that we do have an English nationalist government we can see that is not the case. For all kinds of historical reasons, the Union gives English nationalists a level of international weight, prestige and significance its dissolution would remove.
Actually it doesn't, we ceased to be a superpower when we gave India independence.
England would still be a medium ranked power in or outside the Union, it is Scotland and Wales who would go from medium ranked power to small, largely insignificant power (albeit the Scots at least might try to regain that by rejoining the EU, in which case they would not be seeking full complete independence anyway).
However even England would still fall from about the 5th to 7th largest economy if the Union ended so we are all stronger with it
The UK comes with an historical legacy and significant soft power. No English nationalist politician would voluntarily give that up.
Soft power? Oh, you mean like all the Eurovision victories
Yes, you’re right, we do do very well in Eurovision
Ok, I've pondered it. And its tosh. London's image in particular still benefits from what most would regard as the greatest Olympics ever to this day.
This current English team seems far more self aware, media savvy and socially conscious than any of their predecessors that I can recall. Don't know if that makes them any more likely to win but it does change the team's image and for the better. Similarly, although I still think Southgate is a very ordinary football manager he is clearly a clever, well spoken and reasonable man whom its difficult to dislike. As a face for the nation they do England proud.
In 2012 ‘London’ was supposed to provide a progressive and unifying event for the ‘nation’. Unless you think without it Yes would have won in 2014 and Leave would have scored a landslide in 2016, it’s unifying effect was the square root of f.a. The event’s main function nowadays seems to be a safe space for centrists to nostalgise about a golden moment before all the recent and current unpleasantness.
I’d imagine where people reside would be very much connected to which olympics people think is the greatest.
Southgate has gone down in my estimation after his ‘this island/country/nation’ and recalling the wartime spirit guff. Shows how deeply it’s embedded in the English psyche.
And Scottish Nationalists, of course, never adopt any ‘warrior spirit’ mentality vis a vis the English? They don’t ever reference, say, William Wallace or Braveheart? Or Robert the Bruce or ‘the 45’ or any of that?
You and your various manifestations have literally referred to these things, events and people many more times than I have on this place. That’s your lot’s prism, not mine.
Lol
Flower of Scotland:
O Flower of Scotland, When will we see Your like again, That fought and died for, Your wee bit Hill and Glen, And stood against him (against who?), Proud Edward's Army, And sent him homeward, To think again.
Tho I guess you can forgive that, seeing as it was written in the mists of antiquity, back in /checks notes\ 1993
Very much favoured by Unionist Edinburgh rugger buggers. No, I don't understand either.
Didn’t realise the Scottish FA were “rugger buggers” given they adopted it officially in 1997 as well.
Ok, I've pondered it. And its tosh. London's image in particular still benefits from what most would regard as the greatest Olympics ever to this day.
This current English team seems far more self aware, media savvy and socially conscious than any of their predecessors that I can recall. Don't know if that makes them any more likely to win but it does change the team's image and for the better. Similarly, although I still think Southgate is a very ordinary football manager he is clearly a clever, well spoken and reasonable man whom its difficult to dislike. As a face for the nation they do England proud.
In 2012 ‘London’ was supposed to provide a progressive and unifying event for the ‘nation’. Unless you think without it Yes would have won in 2014 and Leave would have scored a landslide in 2016, it’s unifying effect was the square root of f.a. The event’s main function nowadays seems to be a safe space for centrists to nostalgise about a golden moment before all the recent and current unpleasantness.
I’d imagine where people reside would be very much connected to which olympics people think is the greatest.
Southgate has gone down in my estimation after his ‘this island/country/nation’ and recalling the wartime spirit guff. Shows how deeply it’s embedded in the English psyche.
And Scottish Nationalists, of course, never adopt any ‘warrior spirit’ mentality vis a vis the English? They don’t ever reference, say, William Wallace or Braveheart? Or Robert the Bruce or ‘the 45’ or any of that?
You and your various manifestations have literally referred to these things, events and people many more times than I have on this place. That’s your lot’s prism, not mine.
Lol
Flower of Scotland:
O Flower of Scotland, When will we see Your like again, That fought and died for, Your wee bit Hill and Glen, And stood against him (against who?), Proud Edward's Army, And sent him homeward, To think again.
Tho I guess you can forgive that, seeing as it was written in the mists of antiquity, back in /checks notes\ 1993
Very much favoured by Unionist Edinburgh rugger buggers. No, I don't understand either.
What complete bollocks. Are you claiming that Scottish football fans don’t sing it, lustily?
We already have an English nationalist government in Westminster
No we don't.
If an actual English nationalist administration ever came to power in London then item one on the agenda would be the dissolution of the Union.
Given that we do have an English nationalist government we can see that is not the case. For all kinds of historical reasons, the Union gives English nationalists a level of international weight, prestige and significance its dissolution would remove.
Actually it doesn't, we ceased to be a superpower when we gave India independence.
England would still be a medium ranked power in or outside the Union, it is Scotland and Wales who would go from medium ranked power to small, largely insignificant power (albeit the Scots at least might try to regain that by rejoining the EU, in which case they would not be seeking full complete independence anyway).
However even England would still fall from about the 5th to 7th largest economy if the Union ended so we are all stronger with it
“Medium ranked power” is not how English nationalists see themselves.
Because it's not what we are.
The UK or England is a major power. Of approximately 200 countries in the globe we are in the Top 5 by almost any independent metric for power: economically, defence expenditure etc.
The UK considering itself a middle nation is like a surgeon considering himself a middle earner.
We are not a major power and we have not been since the end of the British Empire and Indian independence, that is just reality.
The only major powers in the world now are the US and China and at a push Russia and India too.
We are an upper end medium ranked power, which for an island of our size is nothing to be ashamed of
The UK is arguably more powerful than either Russia or India, but either way they're major powers too.
We absolutely are a major power which is why we are America's most important ally and someone they always want on side when they go to war.
Heck Ed Miliband managed to prevent Barack Obama from going to war. You think that would happen for almost any other nation on the planet?
We are in the top 2.5% of countries on the planet for power. As I said claiming that's not major is like claiming that a well off lawyer, or doctor, or businessman is not "rich" because he's not Jeff Bezos.
dream on Philip, we are well down the pecking order and would be no chance against Russia or India or France and probably a good few others.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
The vast majority of Scottish Unionists will not be bothered who wins tonight or will wish England well.
You can count on one hand the number of Scottish Nationalists who will not be supporting Italy tonight however as the National headline shows
I don't think that's true at all. Maybe the Scottish Unionists who live in England, but no self-respecting Scot is going to be actively cheering for England — at best they don't care either way.
I for one wouldn't be cheering for Scotland if they were in the final. That would be ridiculous.
Mr. Kamski, I recall reading that English has a surprisingly large vocabulary, but it was a while ago so no link, I'm afraid.
English does have a massive vocabulary, mainly because so much technical language is in English.
Germans tell me that German is the language with the largest vocabulary of any language, but I suspect that is only "true" because of the infinite possibilities to make compound words.
Ok, I've pondered it. And its tosh. London's image in particular still benefits from what most would regard as the greatest Olympics ever to this day.
This current English team seems far more self aware, media savvy and socially conscious than any of their predecessors that I can recall. Don't know if that makes them any more likely to win but it does change the team's image and for the better. Similarly, although I still think Southgate is a very ordinary football manager he is clearly a clever, well spoken and reasonable man whom its difficult to dislike. As a face for the nation they do England proud.
In 2012 ‘London’ was supposed to provide a progressive and unifying event for the ‘nation’. Unless you think without it Yes would have won in 2014 and Leave would have scored a landslide in 2016, it’s unifying effect was the square root of f.a. The event’s main function nowadays seems to be a safe space for centrists to nostalgise about a golden moment before all the recent and current unpleasantness.
I’d imagine where people reside would be very much connected to which olympics people think is the greatest.
Southgate has gone down in my estimation after his ‘this island/country/nation’ and recalling the wartime spirit guff. Shows how deeply it’s embedded in the English psyche.
And Scottish Nationalists, of course, never adopt any ‘warrior spirit’ mentality vis a vis the English? They don’t ever reference, say, William Wallace or Braveheart? Or Robert the Bruce or ‘the 45’ or any of that?
You and your various manifestations have literally referred to these things, events and people many more times than I have on this place. That’s your lot’s prism, not mine.
Lol
Flower of Scotland:
O Flower of Scotland, When will we see Your like again, That fought and died for, Your wee bit Hill and Glen, And stood against him (against who?), Proud Edward's Army, And sent him homeward, To think again.
Tho I guess you can forgive that, seeing as it was written in the mists of antiquity, back in /checks notes\ 1993
Very much favoured by Unionist Edinburgh rugger buggers. No, I don't understand either.
What complete bollocks. Are you claiming that Scottish football fans don’t sing it, lustily?
We already have an English nationalist government in Westminster
No we don't.
If an actual English nationalist administration ever came to power in London then item one on the agenda would be the dissolution of the Union.
Given that we do have an English nationalist government we can see that is not the case. For all kinds of historical reasons, the Union gives English nationalists a level of international weight, prestige and significance its dissolution would remove.
Actually it doesn't, we ceased to be a superpower when we gave India independence.
England would still be a medium ranked power in or outside the Union, it is Scotland and Wales who would go from medium ranked power to small, largely insignificant power (albeit the Scots at least might try to regain that by rejoining the EU, in which case they would not be seeking full complete independence anyway).
However even England would still fall from about the 5th to 7th largest economy if the Union ended so we are all stronger with it
“Medium ranked power” is not how English nationalists see themselves.
Because it's not what we are.
The UK or England is a major power. Of approximately 200 countries in the globe we are in the Top 5 by almost any independent metric for power: economically, defence expenditure etc.
The UK considering itself a middle nation is like a surgeon considering himself a middle earner.
We are not a major power and we have not been since the end of the British Empire and Indian independence, that is just reality.
The only major powers in the world now are the US and China and at a push Russia and India too.
We are an upper end medium ranked power, which for an island of our size is nothing to be ashamed of
The UK is arguably more powerful than either Russia or India, but either way they're major powers too.
We absolutely are a major power which is why we are America's most important ally and someone they always want on side when they go to war.
Heck Ed Miliband managed to prevent Barack Obama from going to war. You think that would happen for almost any other nation on the planet?
We are in the top 2.5% of countries on the planet for power. As I said claiming that's not major is like claiming that a well off lawyer, or doctor, or businessman is not "rich" because he's not Jeff Bezos.
dream on Philip, we are well down the pecking order and would be no chance against Russia or India or France and probably a good few others.
We might not have much of a chance now alone militarily against Russia or India, not that we would ever be doing so anyway given any action against Russia would be via Nato and India is an ally but against France we would certainly hold our own, though again France is a Nato ally
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
Vaccines minister Nadhim Zahawi reveals the Govt will publish new covid guidelines this week to wear masks on busy trains. "There will be very clear guidance that you'll be expected to wear masks on crowded carriages". This appears to be a change of plan. @TimesRadio
Except it’s not a “change of plan” at all.
It’s re-affirming what the government actually said last week - as opposed to how the media reported it - that the plan was to replace legislation with guidance from 19th July.
Did Boris mention replacing legislation with guidance in his press conference at all a week ago ? I don't remember it
Yep:
We will end the 1 metre plus rule on social distancing, and the legal obligation to wear a face covering, although guidance will suggest where you might choose to do so, especially when cases are rising, and where you come into contact with people you don’t normally meet in enclosed places, such as obviously crowded public transport.
That's the problem with English: it is far more nuanced than most other languages, although some may express similar distinctions with pitch and tone. I'm hoping tomorrow that Johnson will clarify whether wearing a mask when sitting alone in a car is eccentric, idiotic or barmy.
Is English really far more nuanced than most other languages? I'd find that very surprising. Do you have a source for this?
English is the language most foreigners find easiest to learn, so I'd guess not.
I don’t think it is chosen because of its ease of learning.
Ok, I've pondered it. And its tosh. London's image in particular still benefits from what most would regard as the greatest Olympics ever to this day.
This current English team seems far more self aware, media savvy and socially conscious than any of their predecessors that I can recall. Don't know if that makes them any more likely to win but it does change the team's image and for the better. Similarly, although I still think Southgate is a very ordinary football manager he is clearly a clever, well spoken and reasonable man whom its difficult to dislike. As a face for the nation they do England proud.
In 2012 ‘London’ was supposed to provide a progressive and unifying event for the ‘nation’. Unless you think without it Yes would have won in 2014 and Leave would have scored a landslide in 2016, it’s unifying effect was the square root of f.a. The event’s main function nowadays seems to be a safe space for centrists to nostalgise about a golden moment before all the recent and current unpleasantness.
I’d imagine where people reside would be very much connected to which olympics people think is the greatest.
Southgate has gone down in my estimation after his ‘this island/country/nation’ and recalling the wartime spirit guff. Shows how deeply it’s embedded in the English psyche.
And Scottish Nationalists, of course, never adopt any ‘warrior spirit’ mentality vis a vis the English? They don’t ever reference, say, William Wallace or Braveheart? Or Robert the Bruce or ‘the 45’ or any of that?
You and your various manifestations have literally referred to these things, events and people many more times than I have on this place. That’s your lot’s prism, not mine.
Lol
Flower of Scotland:
O Flower of Scotland, When will we see Your like again, That fought and died for, Your wee bit Hill and Glen, And stood against him (against who?), Proud Edward's Army, And sent him homeward, To think again.
Tho I guess you can forgive that, seeing as it was written in the mists of antiquity, back in /checks notes\ 1993
Very much favoured by Unionist Edinburgh rugger buggers. No, I don't understand either.
Didn’t realise the Scottish FA were “rugger buggers” given they adopted it officially in 1997 as well.
On the culture stuff, we do import - unthinkingly - the latest trends and fights from the USA, often within days, but what I like about the UK is that we look for compromise and common ground on most things. We also have a good nose for what represents fair play.
I've found the last 12 months extremely stressful because I detest the quasi-marxist attacks on our culture, history and heritage but I've felt at risk of being painted for racism if I speak out against it, so have quietly fumed in the background - instead trying to work out how to best combat it anonymously. I've also hated the framing of equality debate around the relative positions of "groups" in a hierarchy, with the eye of suspicion on all of us in the wrong place, and have felt under criticism just because of who I am.
However, at the same time, I have tried to reach out to colleagues to try and see if I've missed something in the past and ensure they feel more included and as patriotic as I am. Invariably I've found those opinions reasonable, measured and varied and nothing like the Woke activists portray - I've tried to find areas of common ground (be it in Christianity, sport, engineering and history) and build on that instead. To me, that's Britishness. We are not Americans.
I know that some people will try and exploit any England victory politically today, there are already signs of it in various parts of the media, but it shouldn't and won't be about anything other than national unity, so I know they will fail.
Why? Because we won't let them - we're British.
I think the first and last paragraphs are what let's you down. There is nothing uniquely British about seeking consensus and fairness.
Oh, I'd say it's absolutely a British trait.
Your comment lets you down.
Not just me. My wife has just fallen off her chair laughing at you.
You can both laugh all you like. My views are supported by polling on this.
There's a certain form of Lefty who likes to decry any form of national culture or character because they see it as a segue to anachronistic and chauvinistic attitudes. Thus, when you say "this is a British trait" or "British values include this" they love to say, "like most other nations" or "no, I don't agree with that one".
It's all rather pathetic really. A culture is defined by the mores, attitudes and spirit that characteristics it in aggregate and gives it its essence, in conjunction with its geography, weather, and heritage. Each nation has a unique cocktail of those. And they are always definitely a Thing - recognisable and definable. This is ours.
You can sledge it but you don't get to wipe it.
I agree that most of the rest of the world would certainly identify pomposity and arrogance as a definite British Thing.
In my experience Britain is famous for three things around the world, none of them particularly justified although all may contain a grain of truth: Terrible food Miserable weather Good sense of humour
Are the British seen as especially arrogant? Lots of people do think that British believe they are superior to everyone else, so maybe yes.
Vaccines minister Nadhim Zahawi reveals the Govt will publish new covid guidelines this week to wear masks on busy trains. "There will be very clear guidance that you'll be expected to wear masks on crowded carriages". This appears to be a change of plan. @TimesRadio
Except it’s not a “change of plan” at all.
It’s re-affirming what the government actually said last week - as opposed to how the media reported it - that the plan was to replace legislation with guidance from 19th July.
Did Boris mention replacing legislation with guidance in his press conference at all a week ago ? I don't remember it
Yep:
We will end the 1 metre plus rule on social distancing, and the legal obligation to wear a face covering, although guidance will suggest where you might choose to do so, especially when cases are rising, and where you come into contact with people you don’t normally meet in enclosed places, such as obviously crowded public transport.
That's the problem with English: it is far more nuanced than most other languages, although some may express similar distinctions with pitch and tone. I'm hoping tomorrow that Johnson will clarify whether wearing a mask when sitting alone in a car is eccentric, idiotic or barmy.
Is English really far more nuanced than most other languages? I'd find that very surprising. Do you have a source for this?
English is the language most foreigners find easiest to learn, so I'd guess not.
Only "easy" because of exposure and motivation.
The pronunciation is objectively far more difficult than say Italian. And the spelling is more difficult than any language I know of.
Ok, I've pondered it. And its tosh. London's image in particular still benefits from what most would regard as the greatest Olympics ever to this day.
This current English team seems far more self aware, media savvy and socially conscious than any of their predecessors that I can recall. Don't know if that makes them any more likely to win but it does change the team's image and for the better. Similarly, although I still think Southgate is a very ordinary football manager he is clearly a clever, well spoken and reasonable man whom its difficult to dislike. As a face for the nation they do England proud.
In 2012 ‘London’ was supposed to provide a progressive and unifying event for the ‘nation’. Unless you think without it Yes would have won in 2014 and Leave would have scored a landslide in 2016, it’s unifying effect was the square root of f.a. The event’s main function nowadays seems to be a safe space for centrists to nostalgise about a golden moment before all the recent and current unpleasantness.
I’d imagine where people reside would be very much connected to which olympics people think is the greatest.
Southgate has gone down in my estimation after his ‘this island/country/nation’ and recalling the wartime spirit guff. Shows how deeply it’s embedded in the English psyche.
And Scottish Nationalists, of course, never adopt any ‘warrior spirit’ mentality vis a vis the English? They don’t ever reference, say, William Wallace or Braveheart? Or Robert the Bruce or ‘the 45’ or any of that?
You and your various manifestations have literally referred to these things, events and people many more times than I have on this place. That’s your lot’s prism, not mine.
Lol
Flower of Scotland:
O Flower of Scotland, When will we see Your like again, That fought and died for, Your wee bit Hill and Glen, And stood against him (against who?), Proud Edward's Army, And sent him homeward, To think again.
Tho I guess you can forgive that, seeing as it was written in the mists of antiquity, back in /checks notes\ 1993
Very much favoured by Unionist Edinburgh rugger buggers. No, I don't understand either.
As I said, folk are funny.
A lot of Unionists are teary-eyed Scottish patriots.
A lot of independence supporters are cold-headed pragmatists who are all too well-aware of the failings of our country.
Note that Better Together played the emotional card.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
Of course your love of the English comes out here so regularly Malc, nothing but rays of sunshine for those south of the border
Ok, I've pondered it. And its tosh. London's image in particular still benefits from what most would regard as the greatest Olympics ever to this day.
This current English team seems far more self aware, media savvy and socially conscious than any of their predecessors that I can recall. Don't know if that makes them any more likely to win but it does change the team's image and for the better. Similarly, although I still think Southgate is a very ordinary football manager he is clearly a clever, well spoken and reasonable man whom its difficult to dislike. As a face for the nation they do England proud.
In 2012 ‘London’ was supposed to provide a progressive and unifying event for the ‘nation’. Unless you think without it Yes would have won in 2014 and Leave would have scored a landslide in 2016, it’s unifying effect was the square root of f.a. The event’s main function nowadays seems to be a safe space for centrists to nostalgise about a golden moment before all the recent and current unpleasantness.
I’d imagine where people reside would be very much connected to which olympics people think is the greatest.
Southgate has gone down in my estimation after his ‘this island/country/nation’ and recalling the wartime spirit guff. Shows how deeply it’s embedded in the English psyche.
And Scottish Nationalists, of course, never adopt any ‘warrior spirit’ mentality vis a vis the English? They don’t ever reference, say, William Wallace or Braveheart? Or Robert the Bruce or ‘the 45’ or any of that?
You and your various manifestations have literally referred to these things, events and people many more times than I have on this place. That’s your lot’s prism, not mine.
Lol
Flower of Scotland:
O Flower of Scotland, When will we see Your like again, That fought and died for, Your wee bit Hill and Glen, And stood against him (against who?), Proud Edward's Army, And sent him homeward, To think again.
Tho I guess you can forgive that, seeing as it was written in the mists of antiquity, back in /checks notes\ 1993
Very much favoured by Unionist Edinburgh rugger buggers. No, I don't understand either.
What complete bollocks. Are you claiming that Scottish football fans don’t sing it, lustily?
Ok, I've pondered it. And its tosh. London's image in particular still benefits from what most would regard as the greatest Olympics ever to this day.
This current English team seems far more self aware, media savvy and socially conscious than any of their predecessors that I can recall. Don't know if that makes them any more likely to win but it does change the team's image and for the better. Similarly, although I still think Southgate is a very ordinary football manager he is clearly a clever, well spoken and reasonable man whom its difficult to dislike. As a face for the nation they do England proud.
In 2012 ‘London’ was supposed to provide a progressive and unifying event for the ‘nation’. Unless you think without it Yes would have won in 2014 and Leave would have scored a landslide in 2016, it’s unifying effect was the square root of f.a. The event’s main function nowadays seems to be a safe space for centrists to nostalgise about a golden moment before all the recent and current unpleasantness.
I’d imagine where people reside would be very much connected to which olympics people think is the greatest.
Southgate has gone down in my estimation after his ‘this island/country/nation’ and recalling the wartime spirit guff. Shows how deeply it’s embedded in the English psyche.
And Scottish Nationalists, of course, never adopt any ‘warrior spirit’ mentality vis a vis the English? They don’t ever reference, say, William Wallace or Braveheart? Or Robert the Bruce or ‘the 45’ or any of that?
Getting your viewpoint on Scotland from dodgy fictional Hollywood films says it all.
No, we get it from listening to the lyrics of “Flower of Scotland” every time we play you at rugby etc…
Presumable applies to the Welsh as well?
Though the enemy have trampled my country underfoot, The old language of the Welsh knows no retreat, The spirit is not hindered by the treacherous hand Nor silenced the sweet harp of my land.
On the culture stuff, we do import - unthinkingly - the latest trends and fights from the USA, often within days, but what I like about the UK is that we look for compromise and common ground on most things. We also have a good nose for what represents fair play.
I've found the last 12 months extremely stressful because I detest the quasi-marxist attacks on our culture, history and heritage but I've felt at risk of being painted for racism if I speak out against it, so have quietly fumed in the background - instead trying to work out how to best combat it anonymously. I've also hated the framing of equality debate around the relative positions of "groups" in a hierarchy, with the eye of suspicion on all of us in the wrong place, and have felt under criticism just because of who I am.
However, at the same time, I have tried to reach out to colleagues to try and see if I've missed something in the past and ensure they feel more included and as patriotic as I am. Invariably I've found those opinions reasonable, measured and varied and nothing like the Woke activists portray - I've tried to find areas of common ground (be it in Christianity, sport, engineering and history) and build on that instead. To me, that's Britishness. We are not Americans.
I know that some people will try and exploit any England victory politically today, there are already signs of it in various parts of the media, but it shouldn't and won't be about anything other than national unity, so I know they will fail.
Why? Because we won't let them - we're British.
I think the first and last paragraphs are what let's you down. There is nothing uniquely British about seeking consensus and fairness.
Oh, I'd say it's absolutely a British trait.
Your comment lets you down.
Not just me. My wife has just fallen off her chair laughing at you.
You can both laugh all you like. My views are supported by polling on this.
There's a certain form of Lefty who likes to decry any form of national culture or character because they see it as a segue to anachronistic and chauvinistic attitudes. Thus, when you say "this is a British trait" or "British values include this" they love to say, "like most other nations" or "no, I don't agree with that one".
It's all rather pathetic really. A culture is defined by the mores, attitudes and spirit that characteristics it in aggregate and gives it its essence, in conjunction with its geography, weather, and heritage. Each nation has a unique cocktail of those. And they are always definitely a Thing - recognisable and definable. This is ours.
You can sledge it but you don't get to wipe it.
I agree that most of the rest of the world would certainly identify pomposity and arrogance as a definite British Thing.
In my experience Britain is famous for three things around the world, none of them particularly justified although all may contain a grain of truth: Terrible food Miserable weather Good sense of humour
Are the British seen as especially arrogant? Lots of people do think that British believe they are superior to everyone else, so maybe yes.
I think you mean English
No, I know what I mean. In the countries I've lived in most people make no distinction between "England" and "Britain".
Ok, I've pondered it. And its tosh. London's image in particular still benefits from what most would regard as the greatest Olympics ever to this day.
This current English team seems far more self aware, media savvy and socially conscious than any of their predecessors that I can recall. Don't know if that makes them any more likely to win but it does change the team's image and for the better. Similarly, although I still think Southgate is a very ordinary football manager he is clearly a clever, well spoken and reasonable man whom its difficult to dislike. As a face for the nation they do England proud.
In 2012 ‘London’ was supposed to provide a progressive and unifying event for the ‘nation’. Unless you think without it Yes would have won in 2014 and Leave would have scored a landslide in 2016, it’s unifying effect was the square root of f.a. The event’s main function nowadays seems to be a safe space for centrists to nostalgise about a golden moment before all the recent and current unpleasantness.
I’d imagine where people reside would be very much connected to which olympics people think is the greatest.
Southgate has gone down in my estimation after his ‘this island/country/nation’ and recalling the wartime spirit guff. Shows how deeply it’s embedded in the English psyche.
And Scottish Nationalists, of course, never adopt any ‘warrior spirit’ mentality vis a vis the English? They don’t ever reference, say, William Wallace or Braveheart? Or Robert the Bruce or ‘the 45’ or any of that?
Getting your viewpoint on Scotland from dodgy fictional Hollywood films says it all.
No, we get it from listening to the lyrics of “Flower of Scotland” every time we play you at rugby etc…
I raise you by hundreds of years ..........
Lord, grant that Marshal Wade, May by thy mighty aid, Victory bring. May he sedition hush, and like a torrent rush, Rebellious Scots to crush, God save the King.
On the culture stuff, we do import - unthinkingly - the latest trends and fights from the USA, often within days, but what I like about the UK is that we look for compromise and common ground on most things. We also have a good nose for what represents fair play.
I've found the last 12 months extremely stressful because I detest the quasi-marxist attacks on our culture, history and heritage but I've felt at risk of being painted for racism if I speak out against it, so have quietly fumed in the background - instead trying to work out how to best combat it anonymously. I've also hated the framing of equality debate around the relative positions of "groups" in a hierarchy, with the eye of suspicion on all of us in the wrong place, and have felt under criticism just because of who I am.
However, at the same time, I have tried to reach out to colleagues to try and see if I've missed something in the past and ensure they feel more included and as patriotic as I am. Invariably I've found those opinions reasonable, measured and varied and nothing like the Woke activists portray - I've tried to find areas of common ground (be it in Christianity, sport, engineering and history) and build on that instead. To me, that's Britishness. We are not Americans.
I know that some people will try and exploit any England victory politically today, there are already signs of it in various parts of the media, but it shouldn't and won't be about anything other than national unity, so I know they will fail.
Why? Because we won't let them - we're British.
I think the first and last paragraphs are what let's you down. There is nothing uniquely British about seeking consensus and fairness.
Oh, I'd say it's absolutely a British trait.
Your comment lets you down.
Not just me. My wife has just fallen off her chair laughing at you.
You can both laugh all you like. My views are supported by polling on this.
There's a certain form of Lefty who likes to decry any form of national culture or character because they see it as a segue to anachronistic and chauvinistic attitudes. Thus, when you say "this is a British trait" or "British values include this" they love to say, "like most other nations" or "no, I don't agree with that one".
It's all rather pathetic really. A culture is defined by the mores, attitudes and spirit that characteristics it in aggregate and gives it its essence, in conjunction with its geography, weather, and heritage. Each nation has a unique cocktail of those. And they are always definitely a Thing - recognisable and definable. This is ours.
You can sledge it but you don't get to wipe it.
I agree that most of the rest of the world would certainly identify pomposity and arrogance as a definite British Thing.
In my experience Britain is famous for three things around the world, none of them particularly justified although all may contain a grain of truth: Terrible food Miserable weather Good sense of humour
Are the British seen as especially arrogant? Lots of people do think that British believe they are superior to everyone else, so maybe yes.
I think you mean English
No, I know what I mean. In the countries I've lived in most people make no distinction between "England" and "Britain".
It is always entertaining to watch newly born American soccer fans get their heads around the fact the UK has, potentially, ‘four teams’ at any World Cup or Euros
To be fair it must look mad from the outside. Like the Democrats traditionally being allowed four candidates for POTUS
We already have an English nationalist government in Westminster
No we don't.
If an actual English nationalist administration ever came to power in London then item one on the agenda would be the dissolution of the Union.
Given that we do have an English nationalist government we can see that is not the case. For all kinds of historical reasons, the Union gives English nationalists a level of international weight, prestige and significance its dissolution would remove.
Actually it doesn't, we ceased to be a superpower when we gave India independence.
England would still be a medium ranked power in or outside the Union, it is Scotland and Wales who would go from medium ranked power to small, largely insignificant power (albeit the Scots at least might try to regain that by rejoining the EU, in which case they would not be seeking full complete independence anyway).
However even England would still fall from about the 5th to 7th largest economy if the Union ended so we are all stronger with it
“Medium ranked power” is not how English nationalists see themselves.
Because it's not what we are.
The UK or England is a major power. Of approximately 200 countries in the globe we are in the Top 5 by almost any independent metric for power: economically, defence expenditure etc.
The UK considering itself a middle nation is like a surgeon considering himself a middle earner.
We are not a major power and we have not been since the end of the British Empire and Indian independence, that is just reality.
The only major powers in the world now are the US and China and at a push Russia and India too.
We are an upper end medium ranked power, which for an island of our size is nothing to be ashamed of
The UK is arguably more powerful than either Russia or India, but either way they're major powers too.
We absolutely are a major power which is why we are America's most important ally and someone they always want on side when they go to war.
Heck Ed Miliband managed to prevent Barack Obama from going to war. You think that would happen for almost any other nation on the planet?
We are in the top 2.5% of countries on the planet for power. As I said claiming that's not major is like claiming that a well off lawyer, or doctor, or businessman is not "rich" because he's not Jeff Bezos.
dream on Philip, we are well down the pecking order and would be no chance against Russia or India or France and probably a good few others.
UK GDP $2.89 trillion Russia GDP $1.7 trillion
Russia is beneath us.
Changing the subject does not help, militarily was the question. They would whup our asses big time.
On the culture stuff, we do import - unthinkingly - the latest trends and fights from the USA, often within days, but what I like about the UK is that we look for compromise and common ground on most things. We also have a good nose for what represents fair play.
I've found the last 12 months extremely stressful because I detest the quasi-marxist attacks on our culture, history and heritage but I've felt at risk of being painted for racism if I speak out against it, so have quietly fumed in the background - instead trying to work out how to best combat it anonymously. I've also hated the framing of equality debate around the relative positions of "groups" in a hierarchy, with the eye of suspicion on all of us in the wrong place, and have felt under criticism just because of who I am.
However, at the same time, I have tried to reach out to colleagues to try and see if I've missed something in the past and ensure they feel more included and as patriotic as I am. Invariably I've found those opinions reasonable, measured and varied and nothing like the Woke activists portray - I've tried to find areas of common ground (be it in Christianity, sport, engineering and history) and build on that instead. To me, that's Britishness. We are not Americans.
I know that some people will try and exploit any England victory politically today, there are already signs of it in various parts of the media, but it shouldn't and won't be about anything other than national unity, so I know they will fail.
Why? Because we won't let them - we're British.
I think the first and last paragraphs are what let's you down. There is nothing uniquely British about seeking consensus and fairness.
Oh, I'd say it's absolutely a British trait.
Your comment lets you down.
Not just me. My wife has just fallen off her chair laughing at you.
You can both laugh all you like. My views are supported by polling on this.
There's a certain form of Lefty who likes to decry any form of national culture or character because they see it as a segue to anachronistic and chauvinistic attitudes. Thus, when you say "this is a British trait" or "British values include this" they love to say, "like most other nations" or "no, I don't agree with that one".
It's all rather pathetic really. A culture is defined by the mores, attitudes and spirit that characteristics it in aggregate and gives it its essence, in conjunction with its geography, weather, and heritage. Each nation has a unique cocktail of those. And they are always definitely a Thing - recognisable and definable. This is ours.
You can sledge it but you don't get to wipe it.
I agree that most of the rest of the world would certainly identify pomposity and arrogance as a definite British Thing.
In my experience Britain is famous for three things around the world, none of them particularly justified although all may contain a grain of truth: Terrible food Miserable weather Good sense of humour
Are the British seen as especially arrogant? Lots of people do think that British believe they are superior to everyone else, so maybe yes.
I think you mean English
No, I know what I mean. In the countries I've lived in most people make no distinction between "England" and "Britain".
Well once I explain to people that I am Scottish and not British/English their attitudes change completely and they become very friendly. PS;wonder which countries as nearly all think England = Britain and use England in general.
Ok, I've pondered it. And its tosh. London's image in particular still benefits from what most would regard as the greatest Olympics ever to this day.
This current English team seems far more self aware, media savvy and socially conscious than any of their predecessors that I can recall. Don't know if that makes them any more likely to win but it does change the team's image and for the better. Similarly, although I still think Southgate is a very ordinary football manager he is clearly a clever, well spoken and reasonable man whom its difficult to dislike. As a face for the nation they do England proud.
In 2012 ‘London’ was supposed to provide a progressive and unifying event for the ‘nation’. Unless you think without it Yes would have won in 2014 and Leave would have scored a landslide in 2016, it’s unifying effect was the square root of f.a. The event’s main function nowadays seems to be a safe space for centrists to nostalgise about a golden moment before all the recent and current unpleasantness.
I’d imagine where people reside would be very much connected to which olympics people think is the greatest.
Southgate has gone down in my estimation after his ‘this island/country/nation’ and recalling the wartime spirit guff. Shows how deeply it’s embedded in the English psyche.
And Scottish Nationalists, of course, never adopt any ‘warrior spirit’ mentality vis a vis the English? They don’t ever reference, say, William Wallace or Braveheart? Or Robert the Bruce or ‘the 45’ or any of that?
You and your various manifestations have literally referred to these things, events and people many more times than I have on this place. That’s your lot’s prism, not mine.
Lol
Flower of Scotland:
O Flower of Scotland, When will we see Your like again, That fought and died for, Your wee bit Hill and Glen, And stood against him (against who?), Proud Edward's Army, And sent him homeward, To think again.
Tho I guess you can forgive that, seeing as it was written in the mists of antiquity, back in /checks notes\ 1993
Very much favoured by Unionist Edinburgh rugger buggers. No, I don't understand either.
What complete bollocks. Are you claiming that Scottish football fans don’t sing it, lustily?
I think it's pish myself especially using such references - but it was always a Murrayfield rugger bugger song for more years than I can remember, and began and has remained one.
The football is a much later thing.
Of course, if you think I am fibbing, I recommend that you get your 'bollocks' from the Islington boucherie.
We already have an English nationalist government in Westminster
No we don't.
If an actual English nationalist administration ever came to power in London then item one on the agenda would be the dissolution of the Union.
Given that we do have an English nationalist government we can see that is not the case. For all kinds of historical reasons, the Union gives English nationalists a level of international weight, prestige and significance its dissolution would remove.
Actually it doesn't, we ceased to be a superpower when we gave India independence.
England would still be a medium ranked power in or outside the Union, it is Scotland and Wales who would go from medium ranked power to small, largely insignificant power (albeit the Scots at least might try to regain that by rejoining the EU, in which case they would not be seeking full complete independence anyway).
However even England would still fall from about the 5th to 7th largest economy if the Union ended so we are all stronger with it
“Medium ranked power” is not how English nationalists see themselves.
Because it's not what we are.
The UK or England is a major power. Of approximately 200 countries in the globe we are in the Top 5 by almost any independent metric for power: economically, defence expenditure etc.
The UK considering itself a middle nation is like a surgeon considering himself a middle earner.
We are not a major power and we have not been since the end of the British Empire and Indian independence, that is just reality.
The only major powers in the world now are the US and China and at a push Russia and India too.
We are an upper end medium ranked power, which for an island of our size is nothing to be ashamed of
The UK is arguably more powerful than either Russia or India, but either way they're major powers too.
We absolutely are a major power which is why we are America's most important ally and someone they always want on side when they go to war.
Heck Ed Miliband managed to prevent Barack Obama from going to war. You think that would happen for almost any other nation on the planet?
We are in the top 2.5% of countries on the planet for power. As I said claiming that's not major is like claiming that a well off lawyer, or doctor, or businessman is not "rich" because he's not Jeff Bezos.
dream on Philip, we are well down the pecking order and would be no chance against Russia or India or France and probably a good few others.
UK GDP $2.89 trillion Russia GDP $1.7 trillion
Russia is beneath us.
Changing the subject does not help, militarily was the question. They would whup our asses big time.
Without necessarily wishing for war with Russia, I would point out they’re struggling against the Ukrainians, which doesn’t exactly suggest ‘they would whup our asses big time’ in a war.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
Of course your love of the English comes out here so regularly Malc, nothing but rays of sunshine for those south of the border
Only as tyrants , I have no beef with ordinary people, however imperialists I hate. We are their last colony and their last vestige of glory, insecure , immoral , thieving , lying wasters.
We already have an English nationalist government in Westminster
No we don't.
If an actual English nationalist administration ever came to power in London then item one on the agenda would be the dissolution of the Union.
Given that we do have an English nationalist government we can see that is not the case. For all kinds of historical reasons, the Union gives English nationalists a level of international weight, prestige and significance its dissolution would remove.
Actually it doesn't, we ceased to be a superpower when we gave India independence.
England would still be a medium ranked power in or outside the Union, it is Scotland and Wales who would go from medium ranked power to small, largely insignificant power (albeit the Scots at least might try to regain that by rejoining the EU, in which case they would not be seeking full complete independence anyway).
However even England would still fall from about the 5th to 7th largest economy if the Union ended so we are all stronger with it
“Medium ranked power” is not how English nationalists see themselves.
Because it's not what we are.
The UK or England is a major power. Of approximately 200 countries in the globe we are in the Top 5 by almost any independent metric for power: economically, defence expenditure etc.
The UK considering itself a middle nation is like a surgeon considering himself a middle earner.
We are not a major power and we have not been since the end of the British Empire and Indian independence, that is just reality.
The only major powers in the world now are the US and China and at a push Russia and India too.
We are an upper end medium ranked power, which for an island of our size is nothing to be ashamed of
The UK is arguably more powerful than either Russia or India, but either way they're major powers too.
We absolutely are a major power which is why we are America's most important ally and someone they always want on side when they go to war.
Heck Ed Miliband managed to prevent Barack Obama from going to war. You think that would happen for almost any other nation on the planet?
We are in the top 2.5% of countries on the planet for power. As I said claiming that's not major is like claiming that a well off lawyer, or doctor, or businessman is not "rich" because he's not Jeff Bezos.
dream on Philip, we are well down the pecking order and would be no chance against Russia or India or France and probably a good few others.
UK GDP $2.89 trillion Russia GDP $1.7 trillion
Russia is beneath us.
Changing the subject does not help, militarily was the question. They would whup our asses big time.
Without necessarily wishing for war with Russia, I would point out they’re struggling against the Ukrainians, which doesn’t exactly suggest ‘they would whup our asses big time’ in a war.
The Ukrainians have about 10 times - call it an order of magnitude for safety) more tanks than the UK.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
Of course your love of the English comes out here so regularly Malc, nothing but rays of sunshine for those south of the border
Only as tyrants , I have no beef with ordinary people, however imperialists I hate. We are their last colony and their last vestige of glory, insecure , immoral , thieving , lying wasters.
If Scotland was a colony it would not elect MPs let alone have its own Parliament
"Hope England get gubbed or we’ll be hearing about it for the next 55 yrs".
That is a widespread view in Scotland. Never mind that it is possible not to follow British or European news and only to follow village or regional news if that's what a person wants.
One thing about a chip on the shoulder is it can lead the owner to cut his nose to spite it.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
Of course your love of the English comes out here so regularly Malc, nothing but rays of sunshine for those south of the border
Only as tyrants , I have no beef with ordinary people, however imperialists I hate. We are their last colony and their last vestige of glory, insecure , immoral , thieving , lying wasters.
If Scotland was a colony it would not elect MPs let alone have its own Parliament
Until 1997, it was not allowed to enact or modify its own laws except by permission of your nation. Poll tax, remember?
Ok, I've pondered it. And its tosh. London's image in particular still benefits from what most would regard as the greatest Olympics ever to this day.
This current English team seems far more self aware, media savvy and socially conscious than any of their predecessors that I can recall. Don't know if that makes them any more likely to win but it does change the team's image and for the better. Similarly, although I still think Southgate is a very ordinary football manager he is clearly a clever, well spoken and reasonable man whom its difficult to dislike. As a face for the nation they do England proud.
In 2012 ‘London’ was supposed to provide a progressive and unifying event for the ‘nation’. Unless you think without it Yes would have won in 2014 and Leave would have scored a landslide in 2016, it’s unifying effect was the square root of f.a. The event’s main function nowadays seems to be a safe space for centrists to nostalgise about a golden moment before all the recent and current unpleasantness.
I’d imagine where people reside would be very much connected to which olympics people think is the greatest.
Southgate has gone down in my estimation after his ‘this island/country/nation’ and recalling the wartime spirit guff. Shows how deeply it’s embedded in the English psyche.
And Scottish Nationalists, of course, never adopt any ‘warrior spirit’ mentality vis a vis the English? They don’t ever reference, say, William Wallace or Braveheart? Or Robert the Bruce or ‘the 45’ or any of that?
Getting your viewpoint on Scotland from dodgy fictional Hollywood films says it all.
No, we get it from listening to the lyrics of “Flower of Scotland” every time we play you at rugby etc…
I raise you by hundreds of years ..........
Lord, grant that Marshal Wade, May by thy mighty aid, Victory bring. May he sedition hush, and like a torrent rush, Rebellious Scots to crush, God save the King.
Even this blinkered Scot admits that verse was not used soon after the victory at Culloden, and certainly dropped before the song became accepted as the British national anthem in the 1780s and 1790s.
Only shorter lifespan for an additional verse was the Jacobite one:
God bless the prince, I pray, God bless the prince, I pray, Charlie I mean; That Scotland we may see Freed from vile Presbyt'ry, Both George and his Feckie, Ever so, Amen.
We already have an English nationalist government in Westminster
No we don't.
If an actual English nationalist administration ever came to power in London then item one on the agenda would be the dissolution of the Union.
Given that we do have an English nationalist government we can see that is not the case. For all kinds of historical reasons, the Union gives English nationalists a level of international weight, prestige and significance its dissolution would remove.
Actually it doesn't, we ceased to be a superpower when we gave India independence.
England would still be a medium ranked power in or outside the Union, it is Scotland and Wales who would go from medium ranked power to small, largely insignificant power (albeit the Scots at least might try to regain that by rejoining the EU, in which case they would not be seeking full complete independence anyway).
However even England would still fall from about the 5th to 7th largest economy if the Union ended so we are all stronger with it
“Medium ranked power” is not how English nationalists see themselves.
Because it's not what we are.
The UK or England is a major power. Of approximately 200 countries in the globe we are in the Top 5 by almost any independent metric for power: economically, defence expenditure etc.
The UK considering itself a middle nation is like a surgeon considering himself a middle earner.
We are not a major power and we have not been since the end of the British Empire and Indian independence, that is just reality.
The only major powers in the world now are the US and China and at a push Russia and India too.
We are an upper end medium ranked power, which for an island of our size is nothing to be ashamed of
The UK is arguably more powerful than either Russia or India, but either way they're major powers too.
We absolutely are a major power which is why we are America's most important ally and someone they always want on side when they go to war.
Heck Ed Miliband managed to prevent Barack Obama from going to war. You think that would happen for almost any other nation on the planet?
We are in the top 2.5% of countries on the planet for power. As I said claiming that's not major is like claiming that a well off lawyer, or doctor, or businessman is not "rich" because he's not Jeff Bezos.
dream on Philip, we are well down the pecking order and would be no chance against Russia or India or France and probably a good few others.
We might not have much of a chance now alone militarily against Russia or India, not that we would ever be doing so anyway given any action against Russia would be via Nato and India is an ally but against France we would certainly hold our own, though again France is a Nato ally
Like WWII when it was left to the Russians to do teh hard lifting while others still try to take the glory, Southgate only being the most recent one. Being a thick ex footballer he at least has an excuse.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
Of course your love of the English comes out here so regularly Malc, nothing but rays of sunshine for those south of the border
Only as tyrants , I have no beef with ordinary people, however imperialists I hate. We are their last colony and their last vestige of glory, insecure , immoral , thieving , lying wasters.
If Scotland was a colony it would not elect MPs let alone have its own Parliament
A few lickspittle MP's for show makes no difference to the facts.
I have asked a few soccer fans in recent days how a referee would be likely to react to being told by a player to 'F... Off.' There appears to be some uncertainty here. Were I the referee , I would not hesitate to issue the Red Card.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
Of course your love of the English comes out here so regularly Malc, nothing but rays of sunshine for those south of the border
Only as tyrants , I have no beef with ordinary people, however imperialists I hate. We are their last colony and their last vestige of glory, insecure , immoral , thieving , lying wasters.
If Scotland was a colony it would not elect MPs let alone have its own Parliament
Until 1997, it was not allowed to enact or modify its own laws except by permission of your nation. Poll tax, remember?
Well things have changed since then, most notably the Scottish Parliament was created but Scotland still elected MPs before 1997, indeed in 1992 Scotland elected 11 Tory ones
I have asked a few soccer fans in recent days how a referee would be likely to react to being told by a player to 'F... Off.' There appears to be some uncertainty here. Were I the referee , I would not hesitate to issue the Red Card.
Who are these "soccer" fans? I don't know any of them in the UK.
Violence if we lose, good natured violence if we win
And plenty of COVID to go around....
I really do hope not - but not much hope. That lot looks as if it will make the Rangers fans in Glasgow and the Scots Euro fans look like a kindergarten crocodile in Morningside. And look what happened in Glasgow and Edinburgh pox wise.
"Hope England get gubbed or we’ll be hearing about it for the next 55 yrs".
That is a widespread view in Scotland. Never mind that it is possible not to follow British or European news and only to follow village or regional news if that's what a person wants.
One thing about a chip on the shoulder is it can lead the owner to cut his nose to spite it.
A 100% true statement. They have had it won for days, one can only hope they get their just desserts.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
Of course your love of the English comes out here so regularly Malc, nothing but rays of sunshine for those south of the border
Only as tyrants , I have no beef with ordinary people, however imperialists I hate. We are their last colony and their last vestige of glory, insecure , immoral , thieving , lying wasters.
If Scotland was a colony it would not elect MPs let alone have its own Parliament
Until 1997, it was not allowed to enact or modify its own laws except by permission of your nation. Poll tax, remember?
Well things have changed since then, most notably the Scottish Parliament was created but Scotland still elected MPs before 1997, indeed in 1992 Scotland elected 11 Tory ones
But you do realise Scotland had its own legal system (as DavidF was commenting the other day, in another context). A nation that can;t change its own laws except by permission of another nation is a colony. And that is still the case to the degree that power is only devolved rather than permanently handed over.
It was no coincidence that feudal law was only abolished in Scotland after the Scottish Parliament was reconvened.
The Government had to wait for the opinion polls to come out so they could choose what position to take on masks.
This Government doesn't make policies, it jumps on bandwagons
Worse than bloody useless. Either the masks are essential to the cause of stopping the hospitals from getting clogged up and should therefore stay, or they aren't in which case they should practice what they preach and leave folk to make up their own minds about them.
The two most corrosive and dispiriting things about all these rotten rules are the idea that we may never be rid of them, and the capricious manner in which they're re-written every five seconds.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
Of course your love of the English comes out here so regularly Malc, nothing but rays of sunshine for those south of the border
Only as tyrants , I have no beef with ordinary people, however imperialists I hate. We are their last colony and their last vestige of glory, insecure , immoral , thieving , lying wasters.
If Scotland was a colony it would not elect MPs let alone have its own Parliament
Until 1997, it was not allowed to enact or modify its own laws except by permission of your nation. Poll tax, remember?
Well things have changed since then, most notably the Scottish Parliament was created but Scotland still elected MPs before 1997, indeed in 1992 Scotland elected 11 Tory ones
Big wow, now they get abused and laughed at in Westminster and all power still remains in the despot's hands. Imperialist overlords.
I have asked a few soccer fans in recent days how a referee would be likely to react to being told by a player to 'F... Off.' There appears to be some uncertainty here. Were I the referee , I would not hesitate to issue the Red Card.
It's a red card offence and has been so for the past 5 years.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
Of course your love of the English comes out here so regularly Malc, nothing but rays of sunshine for those south of the border
Only as tyrants , I have no beef with ordinary people, however imperialists I hate. We are their last colony and their last vestige of glory, insecure , immoral , thieving , lying wasters.
If Scotland was a colony it would not elect MPs let alone have its own Parliament
Ireland had its own parliament when it was a colony 1297-1800.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
Of course your love of the English comes out here so regularly Malc, nothing but rays of sunshine for those south of the border
Only as tyrants , I have no beef with ordinary people, however imperialists I hate. We are their last colony and their last vestige of glory, insecure , immoral , thieving , lying wasters.
If Scotland was a colony it would not elect MPs let alone have its own Parliament
Until 1997, it was not allowed to enact or modify its own laws except by permission of your nation. Poll tax, remember?
Well things have changed since then, most notably the Scottish Parliament was created but Scotland still elected MPs before 1997, indeed in 1992 Scotland elected 11 Tory ones
But you do realise Scotland had its own legal system (as DavidF was commenting the other day, in another context). A nation that can;t change its own laws except by permission of another nation is a colony. And that is still the case to the degree that power is only devolved rather than permanently handed over.
It was no coincidence that feudal law was only abolished in Scotland after the Scottish Parliament was reconvened.
No, otherwise Texas, Illinois, California, Bavaria, Catalonia, Ontario, Quebec, New South Wales, Western Australia, the states of India etc would all be colonies too as Federal Law and Federal Government policy is still supreme to their state legislatures on core matters such as tax and defence just as it is with the UK parliament over Scotland and Wales even after the Scotland Acts of 1998 and 2016 etc.
"Hope England get gubbed or we’ll be hearing about it for the next 55 yrs".
That is a widespread view in Scotland. Never mind that it is possible not to follow British or European news and only to follow village or regional news if that's what a person wants.
One thing about a chip on the shoulder is it can lead the owner to cut his nose to spite it.
I think you're misunderstanding. The people complaining most certainly wanted to follow all the news. But without being force fed about 'our' victory in 1966 ad libitum.
The perception of the assumption byt the BBC etc that England=UK was very damaging in the long run , also.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
Of course your love of the English comes out here so regularly Malc, nothing but rays of sunshine for those south of the border
Only as tyrants , I have no beef with ordinary people, however imperialists I hate. We are their last colony and their last vestige of glory, insecure , immoral , thieving , lying wasters.
If Scotland was a colony it would not elect MPs let alone have its own Parliament
Ireland had its own parliament when it was a colony 1297-1800.
Ireland was not a colony as the American colonies were for example, Ireland elected its own Parliament and its own MPs from 1800 when the American colonies never had MPs, hence there was an American revolution but no Irish revolution throughout that timeframe.
The Government had to wait for the opinion polls to come out so they could choose what position to take on masks.
This Government doesn't make policies, it jumps on bandwagons
Worse than bloody useless. Either the masks are essential to the cause of stopping the hospitals from getting clogged up and should therefore stay, or they aren't in which case they should practice what they preach and leave folk to make up their own minds about them.
The two most corrosive and dispiriting things about all these rotten rules are the idea that we may never be rid of them, and the capricious manner in which they're re-written every five seconds.
I can see what you mean. However, it isn't so simple. If the absence of masks keeps a significant number of folk off public transport and out of shops, then there is an economic cost too. It isn't an issue which can be solved by an appeal to logic alone.
I have asked a few soccer fans in recent days how a referee would be likely to react to being told by a player to 'F... Off.' There appears to be some uncertainty here. Were I the referee , I would not hesitate to issue the Red Card.
It's a red card offence and has been so for the past 5 years.
I had understood that it was always such an offence! Some people who know a bit about football seem a bit unsure.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
Of course your love of the English comes out here so regularly Malc, nothing but rays of sunshine for those south of the border
Only as tyrants , I have no beef with ordinary people, however imperialists I hate. We are their last colony and their last vestige of glory, insecure , immoral , thieving , lying wasters.
If Scotland was a colony it would not elect MPs let alone have its own Parliament
Until 1997, it was not allowed to enact or modify its own laws except by permission of your nation. Poll tax, remember?
Well things have changed since then, most notably the Scottish Parliament was created but Scotland still elected MPs before 1997, indeed in 1992 Scotland elected 11 Tory ones
But you do realise Scotland had its own legal system (as DavidF was commenting the other day, in another context). A nation that can;t change its own laws except by permission of another nation is a colony. And that is still the case to the degree that power is only devolved rather than permanently handed over.
It was no coincidence that feudal law was only abolished in Scotland after the Scottish Parliament was reconvened.
No, otherwise Texas, Illinois, California, Bavaria, Catalonia, Ontario, Quebec, New South Wales, Western Australia, the states of India etc would all be colonies too as Federal Law and Federal Government policy is still supreme to their state legislatures on core matters such as tax and defence just as it is with the UK parliament over Scotland and Wales even after the Scotland Acts of 1998 and 2016 etc.
You're missing the point. There are UKK wide policies and laws, and there arte Scottish laws - for instance on property and inheritance, and crime. Those last were being decided, or not as in the case of feu duties, by Westminster. And Westminster can decide to do that again should it wish, under English/UK political doctrine, without any rteason being given. Whereas the US legislatures can't do that for Texas, etc.
The Government had to wait for the opinion polls to come out so they could choose what position to take on masks.
This Government doesn't make policies, it jumps on bandwagons
Worse than bloody useless. Either the masks are essential to the cause of stopping the hospitals from getting clogged up and should therefore stay, or they aren't in which case they should practice what they preach and leave folk to make up their own minds about them.
The two most corrosive and dispiriting things about all these rotten rules are the idea that we may never be rid of them, and the capricious manner in which they're re-written every five seconds.
I can see what you mean. However, it isn't so simple. If the absence of masks keeps a significant number of folk off public transport and out of shops, then there is an economic cost too. It isn't an issue which can be solved by an appeal to logic alone.
Same applies to offices. At my work someone asked "why aren't people forced to wear masks in the office?" But also people like me who won't step foot in the office until it is back to normal, no social distancing, masks or one way systems.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
Of course your love of the English comes out here so regularly Malc, nothing but rays of sunshine for those south of the border
Only as tyrants , I have no beef with ordinary people, however imperialists I hate. We are their last colony and their last vestige of glory, insecure , immoral , thieving , lying wasters.
If Scotland was a colony it would not elect MPs let alone have its own Parliament
Until 1997, it was not allowed to enact or modify its own laws except by permission of your nation. Poll tax, remember?
Well things have changed since then, most notably the Scottish Parliament was created but Scotland still elected MPs before 1997, indeed in 1992 Scotland elected 11 Tory ones
But you do realise Scotland had its own legal system (as DavidF was commenting the other day, in another context). A nation that can;t change its own laws except by permission of another nation is a colony. And that is still the case to the degree that power is only devolved rather than permanently handed over.
It was no coincidence that feudal law was only abolished in Scotland after the Scottish Parliament was reconvened.
No, otherwise Texas, Illinois, California, Bavaria, Catalonia, Ontario, Quebec, New South Wales, Western Australia, the states of India etc would all be colonies too as Federal Law and Federal Government policy is still supreme to their state legislatures on core matters such as tax and defence just as it is with the UK parliament over Scotland and Wales even after the Scotland Acts of 1998 and 2016 etc.
You're missing the point. There are UKK wide policies and laws, and there arte Scottish laws - for instance on property and inheritance, and crime. Those last were being decided, or not as in the case of feu duties, by Westminster. And Westminster can decide to do that again should it wish, under English/UK political doctrine, without any rteason being given. Whereas the US legislatures can't do that for Texas, etc.
Westminster is based on parliamentary sovereignty, any subsequent parliament can repeal any constitution set by a previous one. The Scotland Acts therefore are effectively the constitution re Scotland as far as Westminster can provide.
The US constitution can also be amended of course too
Covid restrictions will probably need to be reimposed across England after summer but the government may again delay doing so, a Conservative MP helping lead a Commons inquiry into ministers’ handling of the pandemic has warned.
Dr Dan Poulter, who has also been working on the NHS frontline since the outbreak began, said “challenging mutations” of the virus would probably emerge and set back a “return to normality” until at least 2022.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
But, you hate the English.
I don’t know how representative of your countrymen you are, though.
The Government had to wait for the opinion polls to come out so they could choose what position to take on masks.
This Government doesn't make policies, it jumps on bandwagons
Worse than bloody useless. Either the masks are essential to the cause of stopping the hospitals from getting clogged up and should therefore stay, or they aren't in which case they should practice what they preach and leave folk to make up their own minds about them.
The two most corrosive and dispiriting things about all these rotten rules are the idea that we may never be rid of them, and the capricious manner in which they're re-written every five seconds.
I can see what you mean. However, it isn't so simple. If the absence of masks keeps a significant number of folk off public transport and out of shops, then there is an economic cost too. It isn't an issue which can be solved by an appeal to logic alone.
Same applies to offices. At my work someone asked "why aren't people forced to wear masks in the office?" But also people like me who won't step foot in the office until it is back to normal, no social distancing, masks or one way systems.
In which case you can see the government's problem then. And other businesses and organisations. I do hope it doesn't become a politically toxic issue. Because how people feel, after a traumatic 18 months ought not to be a cause of blame.
We will see what they announce but I don't think anything has changed regarding the plans with face masks. I still expect the mandatory policy or stance to go on the 19th.
They will just set out the argument that 'you should continue to wear them' not 'you must' wear them' and we shall see what impact that has during the next few months.
Gary Imlach was amusing last night on the TdF highlights. Commenting on the phenomenal story of Mark Cavendish* who has equalled the great Eddie Merckx's record of 34 stage wins in the Tour de France, Imlach said it had gone under the radar in the UK, relative to the football coverage. He wasn't complaining about that, or surprised about it, but added that:
At least we haven't had to witness the Prime Minister dressed up in cycling gear.
Indeed.
* Always assuming and hoping of course that Cavendish isn't fuelled by naughty sauce.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. Cavendish will be remembered worldwide by the cycling community for at least a century to come, probably much longer. Even if England win tomorrow, only the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish will remember it, because of the constant media drone we’ll all be subjected to, à la 1966.
Assuming he’s not on the sauce, Cavendish will be remembered as a great sportsman. Assuming the English win tonight, their achievement will not be remembered primarily as a sporting achievement, but as another step on the road to the dissolution of the Union.
What rubbish, the fact England got all the way to the final while Scotland and Wales got knocked out in the early stages might boost English nationalism a bit, especially if England win, as it would show England would be a strong nation even on its own but I doubt it would make any difference to Scottish independence. If you are a Scottish Nationalist you hated England and its sporting teams before the tournament and still do and if you are a Scottish Unionist you happily supported Scotland and will wish England well tonight too.
However I am looking forward to the British Lions tour and Olympics later this month when as Scots or English we can once again support the same team
The problem with you FUDHY is that you understand neo-Unionism (and are an invaluable source of information on that movement), but you are utterly clueless about all other important blocs:
1. traditional Unionism of the sort that has kept the Union clinging on this last half century, ie the SLab/SLD/civic-Scotland axis
2. the Scottish independence movement
3. and most importantly, ordinary Scots
The 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 are not that bothered either way whether England win or lose tonight but will politely wish them well.
It is only the 45% of Scots who voted Yes like you who absolutely despise the England team and are praying for an Italy win, as demonstrated by the headline in the National
My own guess would be that the Scottish population falls roughly into thirds.
-One third still thinks of itself as either primarily or secondarily British, is broadly friendly and will wish us (the English) well -One third thinks of itself as only Scottish and, whilst not actively hostile, regards England as its main rival and will support anyone but England in anything -The final third hates us
My father belonged to that first third you name: proudly British, pro-monarchy (one of his proudest possessions was a press photo of him showing HMQ round his workplace), did his bit during the war. He couldn’t stand any English sports team or individual sportsperson. The air was blue when an England football or rugby team took the field. He also detested what Margaret Thatcher did to the civil service and NHS (despite voting for Malcolm Rifkind as his MP). Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight. A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Typical of the pathetic attitude that they actually believe a third of Scottish people hate the English. So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
Of course your love of the English comes out here so regularly Malc, nothing but rays of sunshine for those south of the border
Only as tyrants , I have no beef with ordinary people, however imperialists I hate. We are their last colony and their last vestige of glory, insecure , immoral , thieving , lying wasters.
If Scotland was a colony it would not elect MPs let alone have its own Parliament
Until 1997, it was not allowed to enact or modify its own laws except by permission of your nation. Poll tax, remember?
Well things have changed since then, most notably the Scottish Parliament was created but Scotland still elected MPs before 1997, indeed in 1992 Scotland elected 11 Tory ones
But you do realise Scotland had its own legal system (as DavidF was commenting the other day, in another context). A nation that can;t change its own laws except by permission of another nation is a colony. And that is still the case to the degree that power is only devolved rather than permanently handed over.
It was no coincidence that feudal law was only abolished in Scotland after the Scottish Parliament was reconvened.
No, otherwise Texas, Illinois, California, Bavaria, Catalonia, Ontario, Quebec, New South Wales, Western Australia, the states of India etc would all be colonies too as Federal Law and Federal Government policy is still supreme to their state legislatures on core matters such as tax and defence just as it is with the UK parliament over Scotland and Wales even after the Scotland Acts of 1998 and 2016 etc.
You're missing the point. There are UKK wide policies and laws, and there arte Scottish laws - for instance on property and inheritance, and crime. Those last were being decided, or not as in the case of feu duties, by Westminster. And Westminster can decide to do that again should it wish, under English/UK political doctrine, without any rteason being given. Whereas the US legislatures can't do that for Texas, etc.
Westminster is based on parliamentary sovereignty, any subsequent parliament can repeal any constitution set by a previous one. The Scotland Acts therefore are effectively the constitution re Scotland as far as Westminster can provide.
The US constitution can also be amended of course too
That is exactly what I am saying - that Westminster can, in its view at least, simply abolish Scottish devolution and go back to direct rule, changing and not changing Scottish laws without reference to Scottish views. 'Power devolved is power retained', vide our old chums in 1998:
"Mr. Dalyell: I thank my hon. Friend, with whom I am united in the unpopular cause of opposing military action against Iraq, for giving way. Does he agree that Westminster will effectively be stripped of sovereignty?
Mr. Galloway: There is no doubt that, in legal terms, it will not be--not in the sense that, as Enoch Powell said, power devolved is power retained. "
Comments
Time for Italy versus... Serbia
It’s not just WW2 either, Elizabeth I’s speech at Tilbury before the Armada, “England Expects”, it’s all part of the narrative - resistance to Continental domination. Similarly the Scottish psyche has a large element of resistance to English domination. I don’t like either, and I hate GSTQ, but we never had a revolution against foreign occupation or feudal domination (at least not one that stuck) that forms the basis of practically every other country’s national psyche - including your own.
Dr Dan Poulter, who has also been working on the NHS frontline since the outbreak began, said “challenging mutations” of the virus would probably emerge and set back a “return to normality” until at least 2022.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jul/11/tory-mp-fears-boris-johnson-will-delay-covid-restrictions-needed-after-summer
Folk are funny.
A lot of die-hard Unionists will be supporting Italy tonight.
A lot of Scottish sovereignty supporters will want to see an English victory.
Of course the other widely observed well known English trait is hypocrisy.
You can count on one hand the number of Scottish Nationalists who will not be supporting Italy tonight however as the National headline shows
If you qualify it by saying "most people in X" etc., don't claim that this is unique to X, and don't deny the right of people in X to be different, then of course nobody sensible would object.
Flower of Scotland:
O Flower of Scotland,
When will we see
Your like again,
That fought and died for,
Your wee bit Hill and Glen,
And stood against him (against who?),
Proud Edward's Army,
And sent him homeward,
To think again.
Tho I guess you can forgive that, seeing as it was written in the mists of antiquity, back in /checks notes\ 1993
Remember how meh the reaction was to the vandalism of the Bruce statue at Bannockburn, and compare and contrast to ditto for Mr Churchill's statue etc.
Gloucestershire 119-4.
Terrible food
Miserable weather
Good sense of humour
Are the British seen as especially arrogant? Lots of people do think that British believe they are superior to everyone else, so maybe yes.
Writ large in that paragraph is the state of England.
https://www.newstatesman.com/1997/2017/05/cool-britannia-where-did-it-all-go-wrong
https://youtu.be/7eLTAU183bQ
Lol
Russia GDP $1.7 trillion
Russia is beneath us.
I for one wouldn't be cheering for Scotland if they were in the final. That would be ridiculous.
Germans tell me that German is the language with the largest vocabulary of any language, but I suspect that is only "true" because of the infinite possibilities to make compound words.
The last time the matter came up, DavidL agreed with me, I seem to recall.
So blinkered and ignorant of reality in their little jingistic bubbles.
The pronunciation is objectively far more difficult than say Italian. And the spelling is more difficult than any language I know of.
This Government doesn't make policies, it jumps on bandwagons
A lot of Unionists are teary-eyed Scottish patriots.
A lot of independence supporters are cold-headed pragmatists who are all too well-aware of the failings of our country.
Note that Better Together played the emotional card.
https://youtu.be/lCypCV2laQk
Though the enemy have trampled my country underfoot,
The old language of the Welsh knows no retreat,
The spirit is not hindered by the treacherous hand
Nor silenced the sweet harp of my land.
Goodwin always has his finger on the pulse
Lord, grant that Marshal Wade,
May by thy mighty aid,
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
and like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush,
God save the King.
To be fair it must look mad from the outside. Like the Democrats traditionally being allowed four candidates for POTUS
PS;wonder which countries as nearly all think England = Britain and use England in general.
The football is a much later thing.
Of course, if you think I am fibbing, I recommend that you get your 'bollocks' from the Islington boucherie.
"Hope England get gubbed or we’ll be hearing about it for the next 55 yrs".
That is a widespread view in Scotland. Never mind that it is possible not to follow British or European news and only to follow village or regional news if that's what a person wants.
One thing about a chip on the shoulder is it can lead the owner to cut his nose to spite it.
‘Midday at Wembley Stadium...fans on top of busses, clearly pacing themselves eight hours before kickoff #ENGITA #England’
https://twitter.com/ewither/status/1414216397371084803?s=21
Violence if we lose, good natured violence if we win
Only shorter lifespan for an additional verse was the Jacobite one:
God bless the prince, I pray,
God bless the prince, I pray,
Charlie I mean;
That Scotland we may see
Freed from vile Presbyt'ry,
Both George and his Feckie,
Ever so, Amen.
Brazil. McGregor. England. Book it
https://twitter.com/spencermorgan93/status/1413877596341821445?s=20
Get your money on Italy.
https://twitter.com/PaulBrown_UK/status/1414216772425760771?s=20
I am not sure the idea of voluntary responsible mask is going to catch on.
It was no coincidence that feudal law was only abolished in Scotland after the Scottish Parliament was reconvened.
The two most corrosive and dispiriting things about all these rotten rules are the idea that we may never be rid of them, and the capricious manner in which they're re-written every five seconds.
The perception of the assumption byt the BBC etc that England=UK was very damaging in the long run , also.
It isn't an issue which can be solved by an appeal to logic alone.
Taking a hell of a time for people to wake up to the fact.
The US constitution can also be amended of course too
I don’t know how representative of your countrymen you are, though.
And other businesses and organisations.
I do hope it doesn't become a politically toxic issue.
Because how people feel, after a traumatic 18 months ought not to be a cause of blame.
They will just set out the argument that 'you should continue to wear them' not 'you must' wear them' and we shall see what impact that has during the next few months.
"Mr. Dalyell: I thank my hon. Friend, with whom I am united in the unpopular cause of opposing military action against Iraq, for giving way. Does he agree that Westminster will effectively be stripped of sovereignty?
Mr. Galloway: There is no doubt that, in legal terms, it will not be--not in the sense that, as Enoch Powell said, power devolved is power retained. "