Jump to content

St Andrew's Day


observer
 Share

Recommended Posts

... an opportunity for Alex Salmond to hype up the prospect of an Indepence referendum for Scotland. However, it may be worth recalling why the Scottish Parliament agreed to the 1707 Act of Union in the first place. Basically, following a distasterous attempts to establish a colony in America and the massive losses incurred by Scots investors - they were simply broke, and required the Bank of ENGLAND to bail them out. Some would argue that the 50million English have been bailing out the 5million Scots ever since! :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And of course plenty others would point out that as Oil is mainly in Scottish waters, and the country has been financed on the back of Oil for the last nigh forty years, Scotland has more than paid back her dues.

 

It should also be pointed out, that "Scotland" wasn't broke, just a lot of the wealthy landowners who had invested in Panama (not america), so they sold the country down the river on the back of a bribe from the English parliament. The country didn't actually need bailing out, and if the committee selected to discuss the union hadn't been gerry mandered to include all but one pro-union member (who had been selected by mistake), the union would never have taken place.

 

Of course the English immediately set about reneging on many parts of the act of union before the ink was even dry. Some would argue that Scotland has been getting shafted ever since. :wink::roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly Fats, I couldn't give a fig about St George, or any of the other saints for that matter; English nationalism is just as nonesensicle as Scots Nationalism. :wink: btw you would happen to be a Scots ex-pat living in England would you? :wink: Your correct that the Scots Plebs were sold out by their wealthier ruling class, just as they were later sold out by their Clan Chiefs after the '45 rebellion. As Scotland has been part of the Union since 1707, and therfore part of Britain, the N/Sea oil is a UK asset, which is now drying up unfortunately. :shock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may be a north sea asset, but it is largely situated in internationally recognised Scottish waters.

 

And no, the Scots masses were not sold out by their clan chiefs in '45, they were unfortunatly duped by an English spy, who was able to convince the Scottish leaders that the English forces at Northampton were substantial, and coupled with the two other large English armies in pursuit of Charlie, made reaching London appear foolhardy.

 

As it was, there was no army at Northampton, and General Wade was in no mood to fight. That left only the thrird leg of the English forces to contend with, and it was only equivalent in size of the Scottish force, half what they thought it was.

 

If Charlie's desire to march on had been heeded, they would have continued to London, and James the eighth may well have been crowned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No such thing as "Scottish waters" Fats - BRITISH waters - yes. :wink: I watched the prog too, but I wasn't refering to (with the exeption of Earl Marr) the incompetant Leadership of the rebellion, but (and I said "after" the '45), when Clan Chiefs fell over each other to give up their feudal retainers to the English for transportation to the colonies, and to swear everlasting allegiance to the Crown, sending their sons to Eton and Harrow. Then we had the clearances, where their retainers were kicked off their land, to be replaced by sheep, forcing Scots plebs to emigrate to the four corners of the world. :shock: The Scots plebs that were left became ideal cannon fodder for the British Army, giving rise to a history of great scottish regiments. Interestingly, the manner in which the British (English) Empire dealt with Scotland is almost identical to the way the Roman Empire pacified their new aquisitions. :shock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Err think your missing the point "Scotland" doesn't exist as an independent nation, all Scots carry a BRITISH UK passport - BRITAIN is THE Nation, of which Scotland is part. The NATION covers the geographical area of the UK, thus all waters around Scotland are by definition BRITISH! :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Err think your missing the point "Scotland" doesn't exist as an independent nation, all Scots carry a BRITISH UK passport - BRITAIN is THE Nation, of which Scotland is part. The NATION covers the geographical area of the UK, thus all waters around Scotland are by definition BRITISH! :wink:

No they are not. :roll:

 

Scottish territorial waters are clearly defined by an act of parliament, it is how estimates of English and Scottish natural resources are arrived at, and why no-one in Engladn (even the Tories who would lose nothing votes wise) do not want the union broken up.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Adjacent_Waters_Boundaries_Order_1999

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I find the whole idea of "independence" by 5,million Scots rather absurd in this day and age, and resembles the pathetic causes of the break-up of Yugoslavia. I've no probs with "devolution" of powers to all regions of the UK, including the 7million folk living in N/W England. Fortunately, 2 out of every 3 Scots, according to polls, have the sense to know where their bread is buttered - so why the other Parties are opposing a referendum to get the issue put to bed once and for all, I don't know. :?:roll: The only bonus provided by Salmond and Co, is that the Scots at least have an alternative to "new" Labour! :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I can be even more condescending! :lol: Perhaps it's timely to remind everyone that the seeds of unification were sown by a Scottish King, James VI, becoming James I of England and Ireland as well, in 1603.

 

It was actually the Scots who pushed for the Union in 1606 and in 1670, but it was the English who gave it the thumbs down.

 

The first English Unionists, funny enough, were the Republicans, who upon the crushing of the Royalist Scots Presbyterians (formerly rebels, but this is not the time to go into the messes of the 1630s and 40s) at the Battle of Dunbar in 1650, first merged Scotland with England. The Union was then broken up with the Restoration, with England, Scotland and Ireland becoming separate kingdoms again with their own parliaments.

 

Actually, the seeds of Union were more likely sown with the realisation that religious wars between the Anglicans and Presbyterians were damaging a Protestant Britain and causing unnecessary hurt between an England and Scotland under the same ruler. The Scots pushing for Union in 1670 is remarkable given the British Government's ruthless persecution of the Presbyterians during the terrible war of the 1660s and 70s, when the Royalists finally got their revenge for their defeats by the Scots Presbyterians in the 1630s and 40s.

 

So when the Scottish colonies in Canada, I think, got hurt financially in 1706, both countries realised this was the chance they had been waiting for. Scotland was broke needing England, and the English were rubbing their hands at the chance of putting Scotland in their debt- this is what turned the English, perhaps cynically, to Unionism.

 

It's also a myth to talk of the Jacobite Wars as being between England and Scotland, when in reality it was a dynastic war between the Stuarts and the Hanoverians. Considering three Highland Regiments served under the Duke of Cumberland at Culloden in 1746... and the Lords of the Lake District were executed after the first war in 1715. Lorna Doone moved to America, where she was loyal to George III during the American War of Independence- i.e. being British was not the issue- who should sit on the British Throne was the issue.

 

Scotland got a lot of things on their own terms. Scotland has a totally different legal system and a totally different education system, quite separate from anything in the rest of the UK.

 

And finally...

 

the Union benefitted the Scots and the English together, and the loss of the Scottish Parliament was no bad thing as it enabled the Scots to be properly represented in London and get their voice heard. The English got to get a better idea of the views and feelings of Scots. Also, the Scottish Parliament was very small, and certainly there are more Scottish MPs today in Westminster than there ever were in the old Scottish Parliament, which was little more than a talk-shop anyway, and a very small one at that. I mean, the present Scottish Parliament is far larger than the old one ever was, and it has far more powers at its disposal. Scotland was run by the Stuarts after the Restoration as a dictatorship far surpassing anything the old separate Scottish monarchy ever offered nor indeed the pre-1641 Tudor Constitution in England, so the Scots got more freedom that way too. And, the new British Parliament in 1707 was far more powerful than the Scottish Parliament ever was, which is obvious from everything said earlier, being near enough identical to the English Parliament which sat in Westminster before the British Parliament?s inception. It was really in Queen Anne?s time that the English, and later the British Parliament began to exercise the functions and powers we know today, which were gained in 1689, and would be recognisable to us. Remember that the turning point for Parliament was the 1689 Revolution Settlement, the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, cemented further by the Act of Succession in 1701. The 1689 Settlement was the one which made the Monarch an officer of Parliament, just like the Speaker or the Lord Chancellor.

 

PS I think you will find that the British Empire in the 18th century was very much a Scottish driven affair. It was the 19th century version which was more English. I cannot remember the facts to back that up, though, but Simon Schama put up a very good case for this in his History of Britain series.

 

And with that I finish my latest hit and run.

 

Byeeee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A fairly rational summary Gman - for a change! :wink:
Apart from the errors in it of course, of which I will point out a few...

 

Maybe I can be even more condescending! :lol: Perhaps it's timely to remind everyone that the seeds of unification were sown by a Scottish King, James VI, becoming James I of England and Ireland as well, in 1603.
there was no talk of unification.

 

 

So when the Scottish colonies in Canada, I think,
You think wrong. The reason for Scotland's demise is well documented, and nothing whatsoever to do with Canada.

 

It's also a myth to talk of the Jacobite Wars as being between England and Scotland, when in reality it was a dynastic war between the Stuarts and the Hanoverians.
Well done, something no-one is arguing about btw.

 

Scotland got a lot of things on their own terms.
Scotland got very littel, and what little they got was reneged on almost iummediately, hence why there was outrage within months of the Union even from those who had signed the treaty.

 

 

 

the Union benefitted the Scots and the English together, and the loss of the Scottish Parliament was no bad thing as it enabled the Scots to be properly represented in London and get their voice heard.
Why did Scots need to be heard in London, not our country. And it didn't benefit Scotland at all. The ruling class got their bribe to cover their Darien venture losses, but then the concessions they had brokered to join the Union were quickly forgotten, and their vioces went virtually unheeded in London.

 

The English got to get a better idea of the views and feelings of Scots.
MAybe they did, of course they simply ignored them

 

 

 

Also, the Scottish Parliament was very small, and certainly there are more Scottish MPs today in Westminster than there ever were in the old Scottish Parliament,
Why does being in a bigger parliament make any difference? Especially one that is now 400 miles away, where your vioce is ignored? And of course there are more MPs now than back then, the population has exploded in the last 300 years in case you'd missed it.

 

 

Scotland was run by the Stuarts after the Restoration as a dictatorship far surpassing anything the old separate Scottish monarchy ever offered nor indeed the pre-1641 Tudor Constitution in England, so the Scots got more freedom that way too.
So what? monarchist states have now all but died out, as they clearly would have if the Stuarts had regained the crown, in fact Charlies plan was for a much more parliamentarian democracy.

 

And, the new British Parliament in 1707 was far more powerful than the Scottish Parliament ever was,
You mean a bigger parliament representing more people and a bigger land mass was more powerful?? Blimey! :shock:

 

Perhaps though, those from that small insignificant country to the north, were happy with their small parliament that actually represented them, than this great big parliament that ignored them? :roll:

 

 

And with that I finish my latest hit and run.
Silent 's'?

 

 

:?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It won't need lots and lots of pages, but thank you anyway for naming a thread after me! :D

 

OK, Fatshaft, what are you made of?

 

Apart from the errors in it of course, of which I will point out a few...

 

 

Go ahead...

 

there was no talk of unification.

 

James VI and I tried so in 1606. It was the English who resisted. The Scots moved the proposal for Union in 1670, but it was the English who turned it down. In 1689 the Scots talked of it then, when deciding to support William and Mary, but William III decided it would delay the full transfer of powers and the Coronation.

 

You think wrong. The reason for Scotland's demise is well documented, and nothing whatsoever to do with Canada.

 

The Darien Scheme was indeed in Panama, but the Scots also had colonies in Canada which needed bailing help once the Darien Scheme flopped.

 

Well done, something no-one is arguing about btw.

 

Then why mention it? To quote your good self:

 

And no, the Scots masses were not sold out by their clan chiefs in '45, they were unfortunatly duped by an English spy, who was able to convince the Scottish leaders that the English forces at Northampton were substantial, and coupled with the two other large English armies in pursuit of Charlie, made reaching London appear foolhardy.

 

Scotland got very littel, and what little they got was reneged on almost iummediately, hence why there was outrage within months of the Union even from those who had signed the treaty.

 

Keeping Presbyterianism as Scotland's State religion, keeping its own legal system and judiciary, and its own superior education system (Scotland is still number one, with Northern Ireland a close second, no offence, England and Wales), and being members of a much more powerful Parliament with influence and many Scots becoming Prime Minister, and the 18th century British Empire being Scottish-driven, hardly very little, true, there were problems, but that's politicians for you. In fact most of those problems were home-grown, with corrupt Scottish representatives governing the land day by day on behalf of the British Government. Another complaint, apart from London being far south, was that the Scots lost their bicameral select-committee style Estates of Scotland to give the old Parliament's proper name, to a more confrontational two house Parliament.

 

Why did Scots need to be heard in London, not our country. And it didn't benefit Scotland at all. The ruling class got their bribe to cover their Darien venture losses, but then the concessions they had brokered to join the Union were quickly forgotten, and their vioces went virtually unheeded in London.

 

With the Union, London was no longer in another country, as England and Scotland as independent entities no longer existed. the country was now Great Britain. You cannot be serious about doubting why Scots needed to be heard in London. After the horrors of the events of 1296-1706, especially of 1638-1692, the English needed Scottish voices being heard, if only to end the pain of the old conflicts. If anything, the Union of the Crowns made matters worse, the Union corrected that. Edinburgh hardly collapsed in the 18th century. It was a major intellectual centre in Europe, being the Athens of the North, and was important, not least in Philosophy, and Glasgow became a major city of the British Empire. And as I said, the 18th century British Empire was a Scottish Empire.

 

And far from being unheeded, the English complained that the Scottish voices were being OVERHEEDED. Not least the verbal abuse and libels poor Lord Bute, George III's mentor, got when he was Prime Minister, not least over his closeness to Princess Augusta, the King's mother.

 

MAybe they did, of course they simply ignored them

 

On the contrary, the English yapped and gurned about being ruled by the Scots, just as they do now, not least over Gordon Brown, as Gilray's cruel cartoons show.

 

Why does being in a bigger parliament make any difference? Especially one that is now 400 miles away, where your vioce is ignored? And of course there are more MPs now than back then, the population has exploded in the last 300 years in case you'd missed it.

 

Ignored?! It's the Scots which are ruining the UK, thank you, at the moment. I'm no anti-Scot, but I want Brown and Darling out YESTERDAY! I think you totally miss the point about the bigger Parliament being better. The GB, and later UK Parliament was more representative than the select committee type council that the old Estates of Scotland were, being a three tier elite of clergy, judiciary, and commissioners, which from 1660 onwards had no power, as the Stuart monarchs tyrannically squeezed the life out of Scotland. The modern Scottish Parliament is far bigger, more powerful and beneficial to Scotland for all its faults than the Estates of Scotland, even though the present Scottish Parliament is only devolved, and the Estates the Parliament of a supposedly independent Kingdom of Scotland.

 

Also, no offence, but London is a lot closer to the Continent, is one of three major powers in finance, along with Tokyo and New York, the logical place for the Scots to go. It's not that difficult to get from London to Edinburgh, and that was the case even for James VI and I, in a time when the roads were terrible. I mean, let's face it, the population of England then and now is far greater than that of Scotland, and so far more MPs, so it's absurd for the English to go up North. I'm hardly complaining that the UK Parliament doesn't meet at Stormont! You have TWO Parliaments, the English have none except for the UK one. It is good to have Scots voices in London, apart from those currently in power. In case you haven't noticed, but the very decor of the UK Parliament is hardly just English- Thistles, Unicorns, Irish Harps and Shamrocks are dotted all over the inside and outside.

 

So what? monarchist states have now all but died out, as they clearly would have if the Stuarts had regained the crown, in fact Charlies plan was for a much more parliamentarian democracy.

 

Actually, we are a Republic with monarchist trappings. (Check out Walter Bagehot.) As for Bonnie Prince Charlie, to talk of Democracy in the 18th century is absurd. The Stuarts were no democrats, and were fiercely autocratic, the concept of democracy would have been offensive even to the Whigs. The Stuarts had ruled Scotland with an iron rod especially from 1660 onwards, and the Scots suffered terribly under them- hence why Bonnie Prince Charlie failed. The Stuarts were bad news, and the Scots more than anyone were well rid of them- besides, it was a Stuart monarch who presided over the Union- Queen Anne. Also, Charlie could not have made any such decisions- as he was trying to put his father on the throne, not himself. And he and his father lived in France, which was run as a dictatorship, and James VII and II trained his son, Charles' father James, to rule the British Kingdoms on French despotic lines. That's a good reason why the Stuarts lost the throne in the first place.

 

You mean a bigger parliament representing more people and a bigger land mass was more powerful?? Blimey!

 

Perhaps though, those from that small insignificant country to the north, were happy with their small parliament that actually represented them, than this great big parliament that ignored them?

 

Again, you misunderstand how much more powerful against the Crown the English and later GB Parliament was. It was a larger body with more powers, against a committee talk-shop in Edinburgh weakened by a tyrannical Stuart dynasty, governing a Scotland which had suffered horribly under especially a cruel Scotsman who served as Governor of Scotland, Lord Lauderdale, who had massacred, tortured and enslaved thousands of Scots to force them to abandon Presbyterianism. Which is precisely why the Scots wanted Union in 1689, but William III did give as a major concession a Presbyterian Church of Scotland in 1690. I was thinking about the comparative make-up and powers of the Estates of Scotland from 1660 onwards, and the powers of the GB Parliament of 1707 onwards, based on the far more agreeable developments of the English Parliament from 1641 onwards. The Scots were crushed to a pulp by the Stuarts after 1660, and in alliance with many of the English, the Scottish Parliament had previously revolted against Charles I and had contributed enormously to his downfall. There had already been two civil wars between the Scots and their own Scottish King, with English compliance, before the English Civil War broke out.

 

It is true that many Scots opposed the Union. It is significant that of the negotiators in 1706, though, only one was against the Union. The bald fact is, the Scottish Act of Union ended centuries of bloodshed between England and Scotland, and also ended the bloodshed between the Scots and their own Scottish dynasty. And when that Scottish dynasty ended, Scotland prospered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would reply to your post gooner, but without quotes it is a nightmare to reply to, and I'm not reformatting when you couldn't be bothered to use the quote button first time around.

 

All I'll say is nice rewrite of history there. But then I presume it is all written with an anti-catholic slant behind it. :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A rewrite? :lol:

 

Hint: simple pasting and use of italics is a sufficient substitute for the quote function. And faster in my opinion. More likely it's a case of, "I can't answer this back, waaa, waaa!" :roll::wink::lol:

 

I think you are doing the rewriting, trying to take the 1603-1706 period and giving it a Scottish Nationalist slant, which simply does not work. Scottish Nationalists should focus on modern issues and practical arguments for Scottish independence, not on arguing about the story of the origins of the Union, which frankly aren't relevant.

 

Anti-Catholic? Catholicism barely comes into it, in spite of obviously James VII/II's Catholicism being a factor in his ousting in 1688. I think you'll find that Bonnie Prince Charlie for example was supported across the sectarian board, the issue again was a dynastic one. If you're talking about sectarian strife between Scottish Presbyterians and the Stuarts, this was an intra-Protestant conflict, between Laudian Episcopalians and Covenanters in Charles I's time, and Anglicans versus Presbyterian Covenanters in Charles II's time. Do bear in mind that with the exception of James VII/II, the Stuart monarchs of the 1603-1714 period were Protestants- Charles II only converted to Catholicism on his deathbed. Also take note that the Pope refused to support Bonnie Prince Charlie's claim to the throne when James the so-called Old Pretender died in 1766, choosing to acknowledge George III as King instead. I think you will find that the Scottish Catholics were no doubt trying to dodge getting hit in the crossfire between the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians in the 17th century. Which is ironic as when I went to St. Giles Cathedral in Edinburgh in 2004 and 2005, and was totally taken aback to see just how High Church it was. I could scarcely believe this was a Presbyterian Church. But then the Church of Scotland today is as wildly liberal as the Church of England, and my eyes nearly popped out of my head and my jaw dropped when I read their magazines in 1992, finding it difficult to see how the Presbyterian Church in Ireland and the Church of Scotland were the same religion, never mind the same denomination! And to think this was where Jenny Geddes threw her stool at the Canon in 1637 over his use of a High Church Laudian Prayer Book! (Interestingly enough, Mary Queen of Scots was shockingly liberal for a 16th century ruler, believing in full religious freedom, and when she and John Knox had their religious debate in 1560, she was very sweet and charming, and Knox deferential, though solemn and serious, but sadly they could not agree, but Mary certainly never had any intention of persecuting Protestants- her downfall as Queen of Scotland- as opposed to her final downfall later on claiming the Crown of England- had nothing to do with her being Catholic, but due to political mistakes on the secular front.)

 

Besides, why would Scottish Nationalists get hot and bothered over the Stuarts, who were from 1603 onwards British monarchs, caused Scotland all sorts of grief and especially when as far as I know, Scottish Nationalists are in favour of a Scots Republic?

 

As for the football matches, does this refer to the stealing of the turf of Wembley in 1977? :wink:

 

Could be worse, it could be Liverpool vs. Everton. Or Manchester United, in Roy 'Whose career will I try to wreck next' Keane's days? :P Or maybe Irish League matches!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A rewrite? :lol:

 

Hint: simple pasting and use of italics is a sufficient substitute for the quote function. And faster in my opinion. More likely it's a case of, "I can't answer this back, waaa, waaa!" :roll::wink::lol:

It may be faster for you to write, it of course makes reading what is from you, and what are quotes and more importantly by whom, impossible to follow.

 

 

 

 

I think you are doing the rewriting, trying to take the 1603-1706 period and giving it a Scottish Nationalist slant, which simply does not work. Scottish Nationalists should focus on modern issues and practical arguments for Scottish independence, not on arguing about the story of the origins of the Union, which frankly aren't relevant.
Nope, I'm talking from the history books, not from that is written on the wall of your local orange order. I'll take them as more factually accurate than your bigoted ramblings.

 

Stopped reading hereafter as you clearly are simply talking like a Rangers fan. If we had a tame Celtic fan on here, I'm sure you two could have a 'great' discussion, but I'm afraid not coming from Glasgow myself, I'm not interested in all this nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's fairly obvious Fatshaft that you indeed are not even attempting to read my posts.

 

I'm not involved in the Orange Order and never will be. I never realised there were history lessons on Orange Order walls before... :?:

 

I've never been a Rangers supporter. I only follow Arsenal.

 

Since when did Rangers and Celtic have anything to do with the Stuart Dynasty? I'd like to see a bigoted Rangers supporter make comments like, "Mary Queen of Scots was sweet and charming, and very liberal for a 16th century ruler, being tolerant of Protestants and opting for full religious freedom." As for the portrait of her when she was 16, PHWOARRRRRRRRR! Oh, and William's elite troops, the Dutch Blue Guards, were all Catholic. True. Absolutely.

 

There isn't a shred of bigotry in my post. You're making it up. I wasn't even considering the Catholic angle at all in my first post for a start. You're just skimming the thing and assuming so since you admitted that you gave up within seconds as you realised you had lost, sorry, couldn't tell who was quoting what, apparently.

 

Funny, I've never read any Orange Order writings on the topic of Scotland, apart, strangely enough, of one article of the Scottish Orange Order in 2000 considering ditching Unionism and opting for Scottish Independence! Weird... but then the old Orange Society as it was in 1800 was opposed to the Irish Act of Union.

 

You're taking the easy way out. :lol::lol::lol:

 

Oh, and then there's the small matter of the UFF scum shooting and wounding my Catholic cousin in 1973, grrr, blackguards! :evil:

 

But stereotype all you want. It'll give me something to laugh about. :lol::roll:

 

I suppose I'll be ordered to leave the Loyalist Terrorists next. (But Fatshaft probably doesn't know who's what and who isn't.)

 

Oh by the way, I was in Dublin on Monday! Shock horror! Visiting the National Gallery of Ireland, the National Library of Ireland, the grounds of Dublin Castle, Ha'Penny Bridge, walking up to the Four Courts, Dublin City Hall. I was hugely amused to see that the chain of office of the Dublin Lord Mayor still has the medal of William III on it, something the Lord Mayor of Belfast doesn't have!

 

Oh that's it, I committed the crime of mentioning William III! Terribly sorry. :lol:

 

Maybe that's the problem. Or maybe not. I don't really care. Indifferent, amused shrug.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then (a) How can you know what my views are?

 

(B) You don't even know what you wrote. :lol: (Hint: I cited your bits in italics.)

 

© How were you able to reply to my posting just there if you weren't reading it? And reading the first sentence alone shows you are sort of reading them if for at least one sentence.

 

(d) I think this is just a cover for the fact you know you don't know how to answer my posts. :wink:

 

(e) It makes your accusations of me being a bigot, and all, all the more ridiculous! :P

 

PS Of course, then there is the story of why Scotland is called Scotland- it was conquered by the Irish. :wink:

 

Oh well, this conversation has given me amusement. Time for me to pack now for London.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...