Britain, Scotland Sign Deal For Independence Referendum

[folium]

.........and yet she was desparate to create the Union.

Anyway I'll just let the English contingent continue in their ignorance of her brilliance.

You do have some odd pin-ups.

First Salmond is hailed as the greatest politician of all time and now Queen Anne is the greatest British monarch of all time.

The first is a typical scheming, manipulative individual typical of most successful politicians; Queen Anne was rather a sad person who's reign saw an acceleration in power slipping away from the Crown, who lost 12 children (the longest surviving got to age 11 before dying of smallpox), who not surprisingly turned to the bottle and died relatively young and so obese that her coffin was reputedly almost square in shape!

Far from being desperate to acquire Scotland it was a useful tidying up exercise to finalize the initial union of crowns at a time when much of the Scottish hierarchy were reeling financially from the disater of the Darien Scheme and thus open to financial inducements. It also guaranteed the Hannoverian succession, took away the Jacobite claim and created the largest free trade area in Europe at the time.

While the initial impact of union in 1707 did few favours for Scotland as trade was opened up across the border and set the scene for the jacobite uprisings in 1715 and 1745, ultimately though Scotland benefited hugely from being part of the most successful economic power in the world for the next 150 years.

More recent times have undoubtedly seen Scotland suffer horrendouskly from the socio-economic woes of deindustrialization as the traditional industries of coal, steel, shipbuilding, textiles etc have been competed away. But Scotland is little different to the NE or NW of England, Wales or N.Ireland in this respect.

Geographically peripheral areas are having to reinvent themselves and IMHO this does not need to be mixed with secession from the union, as I fear that while it may appeal to the hearts of some, and definitely to the egos of a few, it will be to the detriment of many, on both sides of the Tweed.

[MAJIC]

@ phuketjock

Once again you got it wrong,there is no embarrasment for me. How do you expect us Guys South of the border to understand the workings of a "Scottish Parliament" when the only Parliament that really counts when it comes to it is the UK Parliament...Westminster! to be exact. That's why there are Scottish MPs in Westminster.

Now back to you,for your usual specialised put down,

So you know how many Scottish MPs sit in the UK parliament, can you tell me how many English MPs sit in the Scottish parliament??

Then you can tell me why and who has got it right??? Your government or mine.

Its all of no consequence being a Toothless Tiger,just be patient until the Referendum!

Do I hear the faint whisper of surrender in the far distance???

Wrong again,it's BOREDOM.

[smokie36]

.........and yet she was desparate to create the Union.

Anyway I'll just let the English contingent continue in their ignorance of her brilliance.

You do have some odd pin-ups.

First Salmond is hailed as the greatest politician of all time and now Queen Anne is the greatest British monarch of all time.

The first is a typical scheming, manipulative individual typical of most successful politicians; Queen Anne was rather a sad person who's reign saw an acceleration in power slipping away from the Crown, who lost 12 children (the longest surviving got to age 11 before dying of smallpox), who not surprisingly turned to the bottle and died relatively young and so obese that her coffin was reputedly almost square in shape!

Far from being desperate to acquire Scotland it was a useful tidying up exercise to finalize the initial union of crowns at a time when much of the Scottish hierarchy were reeling financially from the disater of the Darien Scheme and thus open to financial inducements. It also guaranteed the Hannoverian succession, took away the Jacobite claim and created the largest free trade area in Europe at the time.

While the initial impact of union in 1707 did few favours for Scotland as trade was opened up across the border and set the scene for the jacobite uprisings in 1715 and 1745, ultimately though Scotland benefited hugely from being part of the most successful economic power in the world for the next 150 years.

More recent times have undoubtedly seen Scotland suffer horrendouskly from the socio-economic woes of deindustrialization as the traditional industries of coal, steel, shipbuilding, textiles etc have been competed away. But Scotland is little different to the NE or NW of England, Wales or N.Ireland in this respect.

Geographically peripheral areas are having to reinvent themselves and IMHO this does not need to be mixed with secession from the union, as I fear that while it may appeal to the hearts of some, and definitely to the egos of a few, it will be to the detriment of many, on both sides of the Tweed.

It will be to the detriment of many south of the border folium....as you well know.

[phuketjock]

.........and yet she was desparate to create the Union.

Anyway I'll just let the English contingent continue in their ignorance of her brilliance.

You do have some odd pin-ups.

First Salmond is hailed as the greatest politician of all time and now Queen Anne is the greatest British monarch of all time.

The first is a typical scheming, manipulative individual typical of most successful politicians; Queen Anne was rather a sad person who's reign saw an acceleration in power slipping away from the Crown, who lost 12 children (the longest surviving got to age 11 before dying of smallpox), who not surprisingly turned to the bottle and died relatively young and so obese that her coffin was reputedly almost square in shape!

Far from being desperate to acquire Scotland it was a useful tidying up exercise to finalize the initial union of crowns at a time when much of the Scottish hierarchy were reeling financially from the disater of the Darien Scheme and thus open to financial inducements. It also guaranteed the Hannoverian succession, took away the Jacobite claim and created the largest free trade area in Europe at the time.

While the initial impact of union in 1707 did few favours for Scotland as trade was opened up across the border and set the scene for the jacobite uprisings in 1715 and 1745, ultimately though Scotland benefited hugely from being part of the most successful economic power in the world for the next 150 years.

More recent times have undoubtedly seen Scotland suffer horrendouskly from the socio-economic woes of deindustrialization as the traditional industries of coal, steel, shipbuilding, textiles etc have been competed away. But Scotland is little different to the NE or NW of England, Wales or N.Ireland in this respect.

Geographically peripheral areas are having to reinvent themselves and IMHO this does not need to be mixed with secession from the union, as I fear that while it may appeal to the hearts of some, and definitely to the egos of a few, it will be to the detriment of many, on both sides of the Tweed.

Jesus talk about boring BOB, give us a break man!!!

We are supposed to be discussing independance for Scotland

in 2014 not the history of the universe for the last millenium.!!

Edited December 5, 2012 by phuketjock

[theblether]

A reading of history so selective it's comical.

Queen Ann was small in stature but towering in vision.

Incidentally I cannot believe you have brought up the Jacobite rebellions, are you now an expert on Scottish civil wars too?

[jpinx]

Does such a non-Thailand related topic warrant such a long running diatribe? I am surprised the mods have not closed it....

[folium]

Does such a non-Thailand related topic warrant such a long running diatribe? I am surprised the mods have not closed it....

That's probably why it is in the World News section.

Over 12,000 views and 1,000 replies is what TV and its advertisers would like with every thread.

Anyway, we are having fun......

[smokie36]

Does such a non-Thailand related topic warrant such a long running diatribe? I am surprised the mods have not closed it....

That's probably why it is in the World News section.

Over 12,000 views and 1,000 replies is what TV and its advertisers would like with every thread.

Anyway, we are having fun......

Indeed. We may not agree, folium, yet we can enjoy the debate!

[folium]

Does such a non-Thailand related topic warrant such a long running diatribe? I am surprised the mods have not closed it....

That's probably why it is in the World News section.

Over 12,000 views and 1,000 replies is what TV and its advertisers would like with every thread.

Anyway, we are having fun......

Indeed. We may not agree, folium, yet we can enjoy the debate!

That's how it should be at least. Hopefully a learning and enjoyable experience for all, even Phuketjock and Majic!!

[folium]

.........and yet she was desparate to create the Union.

Anyway I'll just let the English contingent continue in their ignorance of her brilliance.

You do have some odd pin-ups.

First Salmond is hailed as the greatest politician of all time and now Queen Anne is the greatest British monarch of all time.

The first is a typical scheming, manipulative individual typical of most successful politicians; Queen Anne was rather a sad person who's reign saw an acceleration in power slipping away from the Crown, who lost 12 children (the longest surviving got to age 11 before dying of smallpox), who not surprisingly turned to the bottle and died relatively young and so obese that her coffin was reputedly almost square in shape!

Far from being desperate to acquire Scotland it was a useful tidying up exercise to finalize the initial union of crowns at a time when much of the Scottish hierarchy were reeling financially from the disater of the Darien Scheme and thus open to financial inducements. It also guaranteed the Hannoverian succession, took away the Jacobite claim and created the largest free trade area in Europe at the time.

While the initial impact of union in 1707 did few favours for Scotland as trade was opened up across the border and set the scene for the jacobite uprisings in 1715 and 1745, ultimately though Scotland benefited hugely from being part of the most successful economic power in the world for the next 150 years.

More recent times have undoubtedly seen Scotland suffer horrendouskly from the socio-economic woes of deindustrialization as the traditional industries of coal, steel, shipbuilding, textiles etc have been competed away. But Scotland is little different to the NE or NW of England, Wales or N.Ireland in this respect.

Geographically peripheral areas are having to reinvent themselves and IMHO this does not need to be mixed with secession from the union, as I fear that while it may appeal to the hearts of some, and definitely to the egos of a few, it will be to the detriment of many, on both sides of the Tweed.

Jesus talk about boring BOB, give us a break man!!!

We are supposed to be discussing independance for Scotland

in 2014 not the history of the universe for the last millenium.!!

Try reading the post before making such silly comments.....

[phuketjock]

.........and yet she was desparate to create the Union.

Anyway I'll just let the English contingent continue in their ignorance of her brilliance.

You do have some odd pin-ups.

First Salmond is hailed as the greatest politician of all time and now Queen Anne is the greatest British monarch of all time.

The first is a typical scheming, manipulative individual typical of most successful politicians; Queen Anne was rather a sad person who's reign saw an acceleration in power slipping away from the Crown, who lost 12 children (the longest surviving got to age 11 before dying of smallpox), who not surprisingly turned to the bottle and died relatively young and so obese that her coffin was reputedly almost square in shape!

Far from being desperate to acquire Scotland it was a useful tidying up exercise to finalize the initial union of crowns at a time when much of the Scottish hierarchy were reeling financially from the disater of the Darien Scheme and thus open to financial inducements. It also guaranteed the Hannoverian succession, took away the Jacobite claim and created the largest free trade area in Europe at the time.

While the initial impact of union in 1707 did few favours for Scotland as trade was opened up across the border and set the scene for the jacobite uprisings in 1715 and 1745, ultimately though Scotland benefited hugely from being part of the most successful economic power in the world for the next 150 years.

More recent times have undoubtedly seen Scotland suffer horrendouskly from the socio-economic woes of deindustrialization as the traditional industries of coal, steel, shipbuilding, textiles etc have been competed away. But Scotland is little different to the NE or NW of England, Wales or N.Ireland in this respect.

Geographically peripheral areas are having to reinvent themselves and IMHO this does not need to be mixed with secession from the union, as I fear that while it may appeal to the hearts of some, and definitely to the egos of a few, it will be to the detriment of many, on both sides of the Tweed.

Jesus talk about boring BOB, give us a break man!!!

We are supposed to be discussing independance for Scotland

in 2014 not the history of the universe for the last millenium.!!

Try reading the post before making such silly comments.....

No problem if you stop writing such irrelevant posts what has Queen Ann hitting

the bottle and getting buried in a square coffin got to do with independance for

Scotland in 2014 I ask you, oh wait I will answer, absolutely nothing!!!!

[folium]

No problem if you stop writing such irrelevant posts what has Queen Ann hitting

the bottle and getting buried in a square coffin got to do with independance for

Scotland in 2014 I ask you, oh wait I will answer, absolutely nothing!!!!

Now don't be down on Queen Anne, she's Blether's pin-up girl....

[roamer]

If Scotland get there independance, it could be a big blow to are security. Here's a snip-it from my local newspaper.

"It came as former First Sea Lord Admiral Lord West, an ex-commander of a Devonport-based ship, warned Scottish independence could lead the UK to give up its nuclear deterrent altogether, because the cost of replicating the facilities would be too great."

http://www.thisisply...tail/story.html

Another good reason to vote 'yes', the UK doesn't need nukes.

Really? Let some terrorist state blackmail the UK? Your sort lost that argument with CND in the 1980s , The British people(if not the scots) will always support an independent nuclear deterrent

British people minus 1 in my case, and I suspect a few more. Love your grasp of the realities;

" Let some terrorist state blackmail the UK? "

Ok, North Korea, Futuristan...whatever . So they are suddenly going to pop up with a nuke and say .....what ?

[folium]

A reading of history so selective it's comical.

Queen Ann was small in stature but towering in vision.

Incidentally I cannot believe you have brought up the Jacobite rebellions, are you now an expert on Scottish civil wars too?

Jacobite rebellions = Scottish civil wars I think not.....! What was their objective if not a change of regime in London?

Interesting chunk on Wikipedia about myths re the Jacobite rebellions:

• It was not a war between Highlanders and Lowlanders. Many major Highland clans supported the British government including: Clan Sutherland, Clan Sinclair, Clan Campbell, Clan MacKay, Clan Munro, Clan Ross, Clan Gunn, Clan MacLeod, Clan Grant of Freuchie and others, along withScottish Lowlands regiments. On the Jacobite side, Scottish Episcopalians provided over half of their forces in Britain, and although Dundee's rising in 1689 came mostly from the western Highlands, in later risings Episcopalians came roughly equally from the north-east Scottish Lowlands north of the River Tay and from the Highland clans. In the '45 the Jacobite forces were joined by about 250 English Episcopalians, and at Culloden by 800 men from the Écossais Royaux (Royal Scots) and Irish Brigade Regiments of the French army.
  
• It was not a war between England and Scotland. It was actually a bid to reclaim not just the defunct Scottish throne but that of Great Britain as well as the Irish throne with support from Europe. Though donning Highland garb for psychological effect, the Jacobite army was made up of both Highland and (about one-third) Lowland troops, not to mention French and Irish troops and small numbers of northern English (a contingent which is often overlooked).
  
• Jacobite soldiers were not always plaid-wearing, sword-wielding highlanders. Many Jacobite troops dressed as any other Northern-European man would've at the time, bar their Scottish bonnets. The romanticised view of the kilted highlander only applied to troops from mountainous areas. Few troops also carried swords and shields, but instead would use local firearms or imported French muskets and equipment. Contrary to popular belief, the highlanders by this point did not wield two-handed so-called Claymores, but would only use broadswords by the time of the uprising, or the Lochaber axe, a simple polearm.
  
• Not all Lowlanders were forced to join the Jacobite army. Recruiting records show the Lowlands north of the Tay provided many volunteers, including some gentry. England also supplied some volunteers, including a small regiment. Indeed, Highlanders were probably more often pressed into service than Lowlanders. The act of pressing was not exclusive to the Jacobites; it was also used by most other contemporary armies, including the British Army.
  
• Although the Jacobite army's organisation has been characterised as a backward clan-based relic, with inexperienced commanders and untrained troops, it was similar to most other contemporary armies. Many Jacobite commanders had seen service in various armies, and field commander George Murray was capable and experienced in modern warfare. While many Jacobite soldiers were of poor appearance, some without even shoes, they proved capable of defeating British regulars under certain circumstances. The hardiness, individuality, and resourcefulness of Highlanders made them known as some of the best troops in the British Army.
  
• It is said that London was defenceless and might easily have fallen to the rebels had they advanced in 1745. In fact London was garrisoned by significant forces at that time and King George II had no intention of abandoning his capital.^[2]
  
• It is said that Jacobite soldiers were ordered to "give no quarter" at Culloden. That is what Cumberland’s troops believed, because that is what Cumberland told them after the battle: that an order to that effect, signed by the Jacobite General Lord George Murray, had been found on a prisoner. But the 'order' was apparently a forgery, which helped to dehumanise the Jacobite troops and perpetuate their image as savages. Many in Britain at once believed the story of a "no quarter" order, and many also thought it justified their own army’s uncommonly savage behaviour after winning the battle, when government troops abused and butchered many prisoners, and even onlookers (including children). To deepen the mystery of who wrote the alleged order, it has been persuasively argued that the 'forgery' was no such thing; that "Whoever wrote it cannot seriously have drawn it up with a view to passing it off as genuine orders issued by Lord George." On the contrary, the inserted command "to give no Quarters to the Electors Troops on any account whatsoever" may genuinely have been found on the official, signed orders in a Jacobite prisoner's pocket; it may indeed have been interpolated by a Jacobite hand, and Cumberland may have been sincere when he announced the discovery of the apparently incriminating document to his outraged army. After issuing instructions for the coming battle, Lord George Murray tried to pre-empt it by leading a bungled attempt to ambush the Hanoverian army in their tents as they slept. He refused to give any separate orders for this attack because "everybody knew what he had to do": that is, "to cut the tent strings and pull down the poles, and where we observed a swelling or bulge in the fallen tent there to strike and push vigorously” with “sword, dirk and bayonet". It is conceivable that a Jacobite officer, in the absence of any separate orders for the intended merciless night-attack, simply amended those he had already been given. (Speck, 148–155). Nonetheless, in the morning the exhausted Jacobite soldiers were certainly not ordered to “give no quarter” at the Battle of Culloden itself
  

[theblether]

Folium.....you're missing out on one seriously salient fact about the rebellions. This is why I keep banging on about Instant Google experts. The first Scottish civil war was fought in Ireland in 1690, the next two were dated as you said.

You'll need to read more Scottish history to inderstand the brilliance of Queen Ann

[theblether]

The Americans reading this thread should study that too, they will be flabbergasted as to what extent Scottish history impacts their country right now.

Edited December 5, 2012 by theblether

[Scott]

Does such a non-Thailand related topic warrant such a long running diatribe? I am surprised the mods have not closed it....

It's World News and your free to express your opinions. Just be sure and keep it civil.

[folium]

Folium.....you're missing out on one seriously salient fact about the rebellions. This is why I keep banging on about Instant Google experts. The first Scottish civil war was fought in Ireland in 1690, the next two were dated as you said.

You'll need to read more Scottish history to inderstand the brilliance of Queen Ann

You're missing out the action in Scotland in 1689-92 , Killiekrankie, Dunkeld, and of course Glencoe.

[endure]

I'm sure that that the action in Killicrankie in 1689 will act as a beacon to the referendum in the 21st century

[folium]

I'm sure that that the action in Killicrankie in 1689 will act as a beacon to the referendum in the 21st century

Memories are long in Celtic (that's the ethnic term rather than the rather successful football team) areas of the British Isles. Visit N.Ireland on 12th July or try mentioning Cromwell in the Republic.

Talking of Glencoe, the current head of the MacGregor clan married a Campbell a dozen or so years ago which caused quite a stir due to that infamous night in 1692.

[awayego]

I believe that, for most Scots, the economics and politics of independence are waters so muddied that few have a clear view or understanding of the perceived benefits or otherwise. In which case many who vote for independence will vote from the heart or out of emotion rather than with the head. Others will vote against because they don't fully understand the implications or feel that independence, in these days of economic uncertainty (which will still be here in 2014), is really irrelevant. Also, many Scots will not vote at all for similar reasons.

I was once chided by an Englishman who told me that "You Scots are obsessed by your history!", to which I replied "Only recent history - since 1707!"

Yes, many of us (even in the broader 'Celtic' context) may well be obsessed by our history - it's a form of cultural conditioning - and that history has been dominated by the English in so many negative ways which makes it so easy to blame the English for whatever woes we perceive. It's a Scottish ('Celtic' if you like) thing and beyond the understanding of most English.

IMHO if Scotland was 'independent' (to whatever degree) it would actually improve our relationship with the English - we would no longer have a 'scapegoat' to blame and would have to take sole responsibility for our own actions. It would take the 'English question'(!) out of the equation all together.

I actually feel very positive about independence and believe that Scots would make dam_n sure that it would work and work well, if only to confound the English!

However, I am realistic as well as idealistic and, regretfully, I think that Scots will vote against 'independence' - either because too few feel strongly enough about it to vote or because many who do will do so because they prefer the 'comfort' and certainty of the status quo. As an ex-pat Scot I'm not even sure that I can 'arrange' things so I can actually vote. And before someone jumps in and accuses me of of being an 'ex-pat patriot' who can't even live in Scotland, well I can only blame the English for that - 'they' created the economic conditions that mean I can no longer afford to live there! It's a Scottish thing!

[jpinx]

Does such a non-Thailand related topic warrant such a long running diatribe? I am surprised the mods have not closed it....

It's World News and your free to express your opinions. Just be sure and keep it civil.

As a matter of interest Scott - How do I start a topic in World News ?

[Scott]

Does such a non-Thailand related topic warrant such a long running diatribe? I am surprised the mods have not closed it....

It's World News and your free to express your opinions. Just be sure and keep it civil.

As a matter of interest Scott - How do I start a topic in World News ?

You cannot.

[phuketjock]

A reading of history so selective it's comical.

Queen Ann was small in stature but towering in vision.

Incidentally I cannot believe you have brought up the Jacobite rebellions, are you now an expert on Scottish civil wars too?

Jacobite rebellions = Scottish civil wars I think not.....! What was their objective if not a change of regime in London?

Interesting chunk on Wikipedia about myths re the Jacobite rebellions:

• It was not a war between Highlanders and Lowlanders. Many major Highland clans supported the British government including: Clan Sutherland, Clan Sinclair, Clan Campbell, Clan MacKay, Clan Munro, Clan Ross, Clan Gunn, Clan MacLeod, Clan Grant of Freuchie and others, along withScottish Lowlands regiments. On the Jacobite side, Scottish Episcopalians provided over half of their forces in Britain, and although Dundee's rising in 1689 came mostly from the western Highlands, in later risings Episcopalians came roughly equally from the north-east Scottish Lowlands north of the River Tay and from the Highland clans. In the '45 the Jacobite forces were joined by about 250 English Episcopalians, and at Culloden by 800 men from the Écossais Royaux (Royal Scots) and Irish Brigade Regiments of the French army.
  
• It was not a war between England and Scotland. It was actually a bid to reclaim not just the defunct Scottish throne but that of Great Britain as well as the Irish throne with support from Europe. Though donning Highland garb for psychological effect, the Jacobite army was made up of both Highland and (about one-third) Lowland troops, not to mention French and Irish troops and small numbers of northern English (a contingent which is often overlooked).
  
• Jacobite soldiers were not always plaid-wearing, sword-wielding highlanders. Many Jacobite troops dressed as any other Northern-European man would've at the time, bar their Scottish bonnets. The romanticised view of the kilted highlander only applied to troops from mountainous areas. Few troops also carried swords and shields, but instead would use local firearms or imported French muskets and equipment. Contrary to popular belief, the highlanders by this point did not wield two-handed so-called Claymores, but would only use broadswords by the time of the uprising, or the Lochaber axe, a simple polearm.
  
• Not all Lowlanders were forced to join the Jacobite army. Recruiting records show the Lowlands north of the Tay provided many volunteers, including some gentry. England also supplied some volunteers, including a small regiment. Indeed, Highlanders were probably more often pressed into service than Lowlanders. The act of pressing was not exclusive to the Jacobites; it was also used by most other contemporary armies, including the British Army.
  
• Although the Jacobite army's organisation has been characterised as a backward clan-based relic, with inexperienced commanders and untrained troops, it was similar to most other contemporary armies. Many Jacobite commanders had seen service in various armies, and field commander George Murray was capable and experienced in modern warfare. While many Jacobite soldiers were of poor appearance, some without even shoes, they proved capable of defeating British regulars under certain circumstances. The hardiness, individuality, and resourcefulness of Highlanders made them known as some of the best troops in the British Army.
  
• It is said that London was defenceless and might easily have fallen to the rebels had they advanced in 1745. In fact London was garrisoned by significant forces at that time and King George II had no intention of abandoning his capital.^[2]
  
• It is said that Jacobite soldiers were ordered to "give no quarter" at Culloden. That is what Cumberland’s troops believed, because that is what Cumberland told them after the battle: that an order to that effect, signed by the Jacobite General Lord George Murray, had been found on a prisoner. But the 'order' was apparently a forgery, which helped to dehumanise the Jacobite troops and perpetuate their image as savages. Many in Britain at once believed the story of a "no quarter" order, and many also thought it justified their own army’s uncommonly savage behaviour after winning the battle, when government troops abused and butchered many prisoners, and even onlookers (including children). To deepen the mystery of who wrote the alleged order, it has been persuasively argued that the 'forgery' was no such thing; that "Whoever wrote it cannot seriously have drawn it up with a view to passing it off as genuine orders issued by Lord George." On the contrary, the inserted command "to give no Quarters to the Electors Troops on any account whatsoever" may genuinely have been found on the official, signed orders in a Jacobite prisoner's pocket; it may indeed have been interpolated by a Jacobite hand, and Cumberland may have been sincere when he announced the discovery of the apparently incriminating document to his outraged army. After issuing instructions for the coming battle, Lord George Murray tried to pre-empt it by leading a bungled attempt to ambush the Hanoverian army in their tents as they slept. He refused to give any separate orders for this attack because "everybody knew what he had to do": that is, "to cut the tent strings and pull down the poles, and where we observed a swelling or bulge in the fallen tent there to strike and push vigorously” with “sword, dirk and bayonet". It is conceivable that a Jacobite officer, in the absence of any separate orders for the intended merciless night-attack, simply amended those he had already been given. (Speck, 148–155). Nonetheless, in the morning the exhausted Jacobite soldiers were certainly not ordered to “give no quarter” at the Battle of Culloden itself
  

More irrelevant boring nonsense absolutely nothing to do with this thread!!!!

God save us from wickipedia freaks!!!

Edited December 6, 2012 by phuketjock

[folium]

A reading of history so selective it's comical.

Queen Ann was small in stature but towering in vision.

Incidentally I cannot believe you have brought up the Jacobite rebellions, are you now an expert on Scottish civil wars too?

Jacobite rebellions = Scottish civil wars I think not.....! What was their objective if not a change of regime in London?

Interesting chunk on Wikipedia about myths re the Jacobite rebellions:

• It was not a war between Highlanders and Lowlanders. Many major Highland clans supported the British government including: Clan Sutherland, Clan Sinclair, Clan Campbell, Clan MacKay, Clan Munro, Clan Ross, Clan Gunn, Clan MacLeod, Clan Grant of Freuchie and others, along withScottish Lowlands regiments. On the Jacobite side, Scottish Episcopalians provided over half of their forces in Britain, and although Dundee's rising in 1689 came mostly from the western Highlands, in later risings Episcopalians came roughly equally from the north-east Scottish Lowlands north of the River Tay and from the Highland clans. In the '45 the Jacobite forces were joined by about 250 English Episcopalians, and at Culloden by 800 men from the Écossais Royaux (Royal Scots) and Irish Brigade Regiments of the French army.
  
• It was not a war between England and Scotland. It was actually a bid to reclaim not just the defunct Scottish throne but that of Great Britain as well as the Irish throne with support from Europe. Though donning Highland garb for psychological effect, the Jacobite army was made up of both Highland and (about one-third) Lowland troops, not to mention French and Irish troops and small numbers of northern English (a contingent which is often overlooked).
  
• Jacobite soldiers were not always plaid-wearing, sword-wielding highlanders. Many Jacobite troops dressed as any other Northern-European man would've at the time, bar their Scottish bonnets. The romanticised view of the kilted highlander only applied to troops from mountainous areas. Few troops also carried swords and shields, but instead would use local firearms or imported French muskets and equipment. Contrary to popular belief, the highlanders by this point did not wield two-handed so-called Claymores, but would only use broadswords by the time of the uprising, or the Lochaber axe, a simple polearm.
  
• Not all Lowlanders were forced to join the Jacobite army. Recruiting records show the Lowlands north of the Tay provided many volunteers, including some gentry. England also supplied some volunteers, including a small regiment. Indeed, Highlanders were probably more often pressed into service than Lowlanders. The act of pressing was not exclusive to the Jacobites; it was also used by most other contemporary armies, including the British Army.
  
• Although the Jacobite army's organisation has been characterised as a backward clan-based relic, with inexperienced commanders and untrained troops, it was similar to most other contemporary armies. Many Jacobite commanders had seen service in various armies, and field commander George Murray was capable and experienced in modern warfare. While many Jacobite soldiers were of poor appearance, some without even shoes, they proved capable of defeating British regulars under certain circumstances. The hardiness, individuality, and resourcefulness of Highlanders made them known as some of the best troops in the British Army.
  
• It is said that London was defenceless and might easily have fallen to the rebels had they advanced in 1745. In fact London was garrisoned by significant forces at that time and King George II had no intention of abandoning his capital.^[2]
  
• It is said that Jacobite soldiers were ordered to "give no quarter" at Culloden. That is what Cumberland’s troops believed, because that is what Cumberland told them after the battle: that an order to that effect, signed by the Jacobite General Lord George Murray, had been found on a prisoner. But the 'order' was apparently a forgery, which helped to dehumanise the Jacobite troops and perpetuate their image as savages. Many in Britain at once believed the story of a "no quarter" order, and many also thought it justified their own army’s uncommonly savage behaviour after winning the battle, when government troops abused and butchered many prisoners, and even onlookers (including children). To deepen the mystery of who wrote the alleged order, it has been persuasively argued that the 'forgery' was no such thing; that "Whoever wrote it cannot seriously have drawn it up with a view to passing it off as genuine orders issued by Lord George." On the contrary, the inserted command "to give no Quarters to the Electors Troops on any account whatsoever" may genuinely have been found on the official, signed orders in a Jacobite prisoner's pocket; it may indeed have been interpolated by a Jacobite hand, and Cumberland may have been sincere when he announced the discovery of the apparently incriminating document to his outraged army. After issuing instructions for the coming battle, Lord George Murray tried to pre-empt it by leading a bungled attempt to ambush the Hanoverian army in their tents as they slept. He refused to give any separate orders for this attack because "everybody knew what he had to do": that is, "to cut the tent strings and pull down the poles, and where we observed a swelling or bulge in the fallen tent there to strike and push vigorously” with “sword, dirk and bayonet". It is conceivable that a Jacobite officer, in the absence of any separate orders for the intended merciless night-attack, simply amended those he had already been given. (Speck, 148–155). Nonetheless, in the morning the exhausted Jacobite soldiers were certainly not ordered to “give no quarter” at the Battle of Culloden itself
  

More irrelevant boring nonsense absolutely nothing to do with this thread!!!!

God save us from wickipedia freaks!!!

read and learn....knowledge is power.

[phuketjock]

A reading of history so selective it's comical.

Queen Ann was small in stature but towering in vision.

Incidentally I cannot believe you have brought up the Jacobite rebellions, are you now an expert on Scottish civil wars too?

Jacobite rebellions = Scottish civil wars I think not.....! What was their objective if not a change of regime in London?

Interesting chunk on Wikipedia about myths re the Jacobite rebellions:

• It was not a war between Highlanders and Lowlanders. Many major Highland clans supported the British government including: Clan Sutherland, Clan Sinclair, Clan Campbell, Clan MacKay, Clan Munro, Clan Ross, Clan Gunn, Clan MacLeod, Clan Grant of Freuchie and others, along withScottish Lowlands regiments. On the Jacobite side, Scottish Episcopalians provided over half of their forces in Britain, and although Dundee's rising in 1689 came mostly from the western Highlands, in later risings Episcopalians came roughly equally from the north-east Scottish Lowlands north of the River Tay and from the Highland clans. In the '45 the Jacobite forces were joined by about 250 English Episcopalians, and at Culloden by 800 men from the Écossais Royaux (Royal Scots) and Irish Brigade Regiments of the French army.
  
• It was not a war between England and Scotland. It was actually a bid to reclaim not just the defunct Scottish throne but that of Great Britain as well as the Irish throne with support from Europe. Though donning Highland garb for psychological effect, the Jacobite army was made up of both Highland and (about one-third) Lowland troops, not to mention French and Irish troops and small numbers of northern English (a contingent which is often overlooked).
  
• Jacobite soldiers were not always plaid-wearing, sword-wielding highlanders. Many Jacobite troops dressed as any other Northern-European man would've at the time, bar their Scottish bonnets. The romanticised view of the kilted highlander only applied to troops from mountainous areas. Few troops also carried swords and shields, but instead would use local firearms or imported French muskets and equipment. Contrary to popular belief, the highlanders by this point did not wield two-handed so-called Claymores, but would only use broadswords by the time of the uprising, or the Lochaber axe, a simple polearm.
  
• Not all Lowlanders were forced to join the Jacobite army. Recruiting records show the Lowlands north of the Tay provided many volunteers, including some gentry. England also supplied some volunteers, including a small regiment. Indeed, Highlanders were probably more often pressed into service than Lowlanders. The act of pressing was not exclusive to the Jacobites; it was also used by most other contemporary armies, including the British Army.
  
• Although the Jacobite army's organisation has been characterised as a backward clan-based relic, with inexperienced commanders and untrained troops, it was similar to most other contemporary armies. Many Jacobite commanders had seen service in various armies, and field commander George Murray was capable and experienced in modern warfare. While many Jacobite soldiers were of poor appearance, some without even shoes, they proved capable of defeating British regulars under certain circumstances. The hardiness, individuality, and resourcefulness of Highlanders made them known as some of the best troops in the British Army.
  
• It is said that London was defenceless and might easily have fallen to the rebels had they advanced in 1745. In fact London was garrisoned by significant forces at that time and King George II had no intention of abandoning his capital.^[2]
  
• It is said that Jacobite soldiers were ordered to "give no quarter" at Culloden. That is what Cumberland’s troops believed, because that is what Cumberland told them after the battle: that an order to that effect, signed by the Jacobite General Lord George Murray, had been found on a prisoner. But the 'order' was apparently a forgery, which helped to dehumanise the Jacobite troops and perpetuate their image as savages. Many in Britain at once believed the story of a "no quarter" order, and many also thought it justified their own army’s uncommonly savage behaviour after winning the battle, when government troops abused and butchered many prisoners, and even onlookers (including children). To deepen the mystery of who wrote the alleged order, it has been persuasively argued that the 'forgery' was no such thing; that "Whoever wrote it cannot seriously have drawn it up with a view to passing it off as genuine orders issued by Lord George." On the contrary, the inserted command "to give no Quarters to the Electors Troops on any account whatsoever" may genuinely have been found on the official, signed orders in a Jacobite prisoner's pocket; it may indeed have been interpolated by a Jacobite hand, and Cumberland may have been sincere when he announced the discovery of the apparently incriminating document to his outraged army. After issuing instructions for the coming battle, Lord George Murray tried to pre-empt it by leading a bungled attempt to ambush the Hanoverian army in their tents as they slept. He refused to give any separate orders for this attack because "everybody knew what he had to do": that is, "to cut the tent strings and pull down the poles, and where we observed a swelling or bulge in the fallen tent there to strike and push vigorously” with “sword, dirk and bayonet". It is conceivable that a Jacobite officer, in the absence of any separate orders for the intended merciless night-attack, simply amended those he had already been given. (Speck, 148–155). Nonetheless, in the morning the exhausted Jacobite soldiers were certainly not ordered to “give no quarter” at the Battle of Culloden itself
  

More irrelevant boring nonsense absolutely nothing to do with this thread!!!!

God save us from wickipedia freaks!!!

read and learn....knowledge is power.

Blah,blah,blah,blah and Blah absolute piffle!!!

[folium]

Anyway..........how about this wee link.

http://www.scotsman....ntary-1-2597910

Seems to me that Alex Salmond has demanded an explanation from the police for potential " partiality " against opponents of the Trump plans.

Interesting that you have put quote marks around partiallity.

From the You've Been Trumped website

Grampian Police issued this half baked apology in December 2011 following a whitewash cover-up enquiry into the unprecedented arrest of filmmakers Anthony Baxter and Richard Phinney (and the subsequent charges they faced) whilst making You’ve Been Trumped. According to Britain’s National Union of Journalists, it’s the first time two journalists have been arrested and charged in the United Kingdom for simply carrying out an interview.

Now Salmond demands and explanation!

Two years after the event!

One year after he declined to attend a public viewing of the film. A viewing the director offerred to arrange at a time and place of Salmond's convenience and at the director's expense.

Perhaps the fuss over this affair and the stink of Salmond's lack of conceren over his constituents problems has finally seeped through into what passes for his conscience.

Too little, too late!

Anyway, did you not say earlier in this toipic that you never believed anything you read in The Scotsman?

Edit to add link.

Link to where is said I never believed anything I read in The Scotsman? A newspaper I buy and read on a regular basis.

Well, reading today's edition of the Scotsman may well make you choke on your breakfast Buckie....

http://www.scotsman....ssels-1-2677200

Not a roadblock but definitely a wrinkle for Mr Salmond.

Edited December 6, 2012 by folium

[phuketjock]

Interesting that you have put quote marks around partiallity.

From the You've Been Trumped website

Grampian Police issued this half baked apology in December 2011 following a whitewash cover-up enquiry into the unprecedented arrest of filmmakers Anthony Baxter and Richard Phinney (and the subsequent charges they faced) whilst making You’ve Been Trumped. According to Britain’s National Union of Journalists, it’s the first time two journalists have been arrested and charged in the United Kingdom for simply carrying out an interview.

Now Salmond demands and explanation!

Two years after the event!

One year after he declined to attend a public viewing of the film. A viewing the director offerred to arrange at a time and place of Salmond's convenience and at the director's expense.

Perhaps the fuss over this affair and the stink of Salmond's lack of conceren over his constituents problems has finally seeped through into what passes for his conscience.

Too little, too late!

Anyway, did you not say earlier in this toipic that you never believed anything you read in The Scotsman?

Edit to add link.

Link to where is said I never believed anything I read in The Scotsman? A newspaper I buy and read on a regular basis.

Well, reading today's edition of the Scotsman may well make you choke on your Buckfast....

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-independence-separate-scotland-must-apply-to-join-eu-warns-brussels-1-2677200

Not a roadblock but definitely a wrinkle for Mr Salmond.

From your own source yet agian

"Scotland has been an integral part of the European Union for almost four decades and an independent Scotland will continue in EU membership. As legal, constitutional and European experts have confirmed, Scotland is part of the territory of the European Union and the people of Scotland are citizens of the EU, and there is no provision for those circumstances to change upon independence.”

When are you ever going to learn Journalists, in particular political journalists and

politicians are not to be trusted.

My dear father told me many years ago "believe nothing of what you hear and half of

what you see" and scrutinise that before you accept it and his wisdom has held me

in good stead all of my life, so anything you say folium has little standing with me.

" Talking is cheap, people follow like sheep, even when there is no where to go "

Kind of sums you up folium IMO a bit of a non thinking follower, or as theblether

likes to say " an instant Googler " !!!!!

Edited December 6, 2012 by phuketjock

[folium]

From your own source yet agian

"Scotland has been an integral part of the European Union for almost four decades and an independent Scotland will continue in EU membership. As legal, constitutional and European experts have confirmed, Scotland is part of the territory of the European Union and the people of Scotland are citizens of the EU, and there is no provision for those circumstances to change upon independence.”

When are you ever going to learn Journalists, in particular political journalists and

politicians are not to be trusted.

My dear father told me many years ago "believe nothing of what you hear and half of

what you see" and scrutinise that before you accept it and his wisdom has held me

in good stead all of my life, so anything you say folium has little standing with me.

" Talking is cheap, people follow like sheep, even when there is no where to go "

Kind of sums you up folium IMO a bit of a non thinking follower, or as theblether

likes to say " an instant Googler " !!!!!

Thank you for your accurate observation that often one cannot trust what one reads.

Unfortunately, from your point of view at least, the excerpt you quoted were the words of a spokesperson for the Scottish Government....

[phuketjock]

From your own source yet agian

"Scotland has been an integral part of the European Union for almost four decades and an independent Scotland will continue in EU membership. As legal, constitutional and European experts have confirmed, Scotland is part of the territory of the European Union and the people of Scotland are citizens of the EU, and there is no provision for those circumstances to change upon independence.”

When are you ever going to learn Journalists, in particular political journalists and

politicians are not to be trusted.

My dear father told me many years ago "believe nothing of what you hear and half of

what you see" and scrutinise that before you accept it and his wisdom has held me

in good stead all of my life, so anything you say folium has little standing with me.

" Talking is cheap, people follow like sheep, even when there is no where to go "

Kind of sums you up folium IMO a bit of a non thinking follower, or as theblether

likes to say " an instant Googler " !!!!!

Thank you for your accurate observation that often one cannot trust what one reads.

Unfortunately, from your point of view at least, the excerpt you quoted were the words of a spokesperson for the Scottish Government....

You just don't get it do you??

So is the Spokesperson for the Scottish governments words less valid than your Scotsman

journalist or for that matter your words, I think not.

It's the same story over and over with you folium, factless speculation and conjecture.!!!