View Full Version : The Real Braveheart.
John Little
21-Feb-12, 19:59
Tonight at 8 pm on Channel 5.
Should be interesting - and it's not the BBC....
We often include a 'real braveheart' aspect to our reenactment shows. It often amazes the audiences when we line the 'Hollywood' Braveheart up next to the 'real' Braveheart. It will be interesting to watch this programme... We have several experts in the group lol. I find that most people think the film is historically accurate and it is not. I have heard it spoken of with derision however, if the film encourages people to get enthusiastic about Scottish History and go and read more then its been really useful. Its a Good story and a good film though Mel Gibson's scottish accent is worse than mine, the battle of Stirling bridge doesnt have a bridge and there is no evidence of Andrew de Moray - a key player in the early part of the Scottish Wars of Independence.
John Little
21-Feb-12, 21:12
Stealing beer I can relate to...
John Little
21-Feb-12, 21:56
No surprises there then...
teddybear1873
21-Feb-12, 22:11
I cringe everytime when the American's waffle on about how such a great film Braveheart is. I just tell them I have never heard of it. I do get strange looks.
It IS a good film though, its a good watch. What it isnt is True. Its exactly what it is - a story.
John Little
21-Feb-12, 22:55
I'm not sure I agree.
I would describe it more as a work of propaganda than as a 'story'.
Propaganda????? A film made by an Australian, starring an australian, filmed in ireland which fictionalised a story to please an American audience and annoy a whole range of Scots? Propaganda for whom and for what?
If thats the case do you regard what we do for the likes of Historic Scotland and clan gatherings as "propoganda" too?
I know there was a suggestion that it was responsible for a rise in Nationalism in the 90s but mostly the Scots that I meet react to it the way that teddybear does. Usually followed by exasperation that people are so gullible as to beleive its real.
teddybear1873
22-Feb-12, 00:36
I honestly thought Rob Roy was a far better film. I'm not saying Braveheart was a bad film, It was just too much Hollywood for me. I think what turned me off a little was the so called romance with The Princess of Wales, the blue painted fighters and portraying Robert the Bruce as a traitor.
John Little
22-Feb-12, 09:20
I have made no link between what anyone does for historic Scotland or in re-enactments.
I said I thought that Braveheart was Propaganda.
A lot of what Hollywood does is Propaganda. It is designed to convey a particular world view.
The most cryingly obvious examples I can think of for you is the spate of Vietnam films that came out a few years ago where the 'good' Americans were fighting against the 'evil' Vietnamese. There was not one of them that showed a Vietnamese person as decent or their cause as even worth considering.
Mel Gibson has a problem with race.
He does not like Jews and he does not like English.
In 'Braveheart' as in 'The Patriot' the English are Mr Gibson's convenient stereotypes for effete, vicious and cruel.
He is not about balance ; he is about feeding a particular view of the world- Propaganda.
IMel Gibson has a problem with race.He does not like Jews and he does not like English.
In 'Braveheart' as in 'The Patriot' the English are Mr Gibson's convenient stereotypes for effete, vicious and cruel.
He is not about balance ; he is about feeding a particular view of the world- Propaganda.
Mel Gibson is an Actor emphasis on actor, who was born in Australia, who gives a damn what he thinks, he is not a major world leader or player. Braveheart was a movie, sic entertainment, good for some not so good for others.
Was it by accident that Channel 5 broadcast that particular programme? No, it was to get viewer numbers no more no less. I for one did not watch it.
Its been like that since the movies started. Cowboys good, indians bad: english good, germans bad; west good, east bad: they are just films. I have never been totally convinced by the idea of the "corrupting influence" of films or computer games. They are films. I liked Braveheart when I first saw it, I cant watch it now without being irritated by its inaccuracies but I think if it gets people talking and thinking and being interested in finding more out then its not done a disservice. And as for reenactments lol.... Well we try to be as authentic and accurate as you would expect from a top group ( the ABSOLUTE best actually lol) but even we have been known to do the main show accurately and later on play it again Sam but with the Scots army winning because the crowd wanted it. Maybe that was propaganda too but it was definitely fun and appreciated!
John Little
22-Feb-12, 11:00
I am out for the day so cannot engage in as full a reponse as I might ( to which some might say thank goodness) but I doubt that many native americans would see most cowboys and indians films as 'just' films. They were more of a justification. I do not go as far as Goebbels in thinking that Propaganda is everything but it is the glue that holds society together.Try watching Birth of a nation ...
Mr Little has made a big jump from "The Real Braveheart" to the plight of native americans. I grew up in the time of playing cowboys and indians, I had never seen a movie until I was aged 10, so I cannot say movies influenced my thinking. I lived less than 200 yards from a German POW camp in Perthshire, and as the only child in the radius of nearly 2 miles, my best friends were German. I did everything in the camp , but sleep in it. When playing "War" games, I think the feeling in my childhood was anti Japanese, not anti German. Again this was all done without the influence of movies, as the nearest cinema was 10 miles away, and my Dads shire horses did not do cinema trips.
Try watching Birth of a nation ... i have seen it ... Years ago as part of a course we were doing. Its a dark disturbing film but it is nearly 100 years old and society is very different today.I have to accept that films as propaganda have been effective. I was wrong to dismiss the historic impact of films. But today? And Braveheart? I still cant take that on board.
Green_not_greed
22-Feb-12, 13:35
I've never taken "Braveheart" to be anything other than fantasy based around some known events and characters. I though the Channel 5 programme last night was very good and informative. I will be interesting to see if Historic Scotland rebrand the "Wallace sword" for what it really is.
John Little
22-Feb-12, 22:19
The danger of such films perhaps lies not so much in the 'story' it tells but in the mind of the person watching it. The nature of propaganda is such that it operates at several levels. One of the most notorious of Goebbels' films was Jud Suss, which, on the face of it was an adventure tale set in 18th century Germany. The 'villain' is an unscrupulous and ultimately evil Jew. It is, to one mind a good old fashioned adventure story in costumes like so many that we see on Sunday nights.
But to a mind brought up to hate Jews it was something else entirely - because of the mindset of the person viewing it.
Braveheart is similar. To many it's a fantasy. To others it's inaccurate nonsense.
But to some, it shows on the big screen exactly what they wish to see, focuses what they already think, and because it is aimed at a mass audience, is capable of concentrating a sector of public opinion. Truth vanishes underneath the message and accuracy is irrelevant.
Birth of a nation was made in 1915. But propaganda is with us still and is more important than ever. Without it the advertising industry would go bust.
And what causes me some amusement at the moment is a series called 'The Diamond Queen'- which you might have seen...
but its only propaganda, if people like you keep bringing up this jingoistic claptrap, to a Scots web site, at this particular time in Scotland politics.
John Little
22-Feb-12, 22:35
People like me?
What sort of person might that be?
People like me?What sort of person might that be?
people who post claptrap like this post to wind up the natives
John Little
22-Feb-12, 22:59
but its only propaganda, if people like you keep bringing up this jingoistic claptrap, to a Scots web site, at this particular time in Scotland politics.
However, leaving aside what sort of person I am, I think you will find that we are in broad agreement. Braveheart is indeed, imho, jingoistic claptrap.
I do however think it would be a grave mistake to ignore the 'Braveheart effect; on Scottish or UK politics - and especially at this time. If it is not addressed then a large factor in pushing Nationalism, for some people at least, will be left out of the debate.
You see, part of Braveheart's appeal is to the proto-fascist.
It's not got lot to do with democracy, but the underlying sub plot that all we need is one strong and macho leader to unite us and then we can give the foreigner what for, is a bit too much like the yearning for a Fuhrer figure to lead us to the promised land.
It's an element in anybody's politics, not just in Scotland's, which is unwholesome, but needs to be recognised.
So a programme which addresses the evidence behind such a myth is perhaps of some value?
John Little
22-Feb-12, 23:00
people who post claptrap like this post to wind up the natives
It has aye seemed to me that the people who get wound up by such are those who wish to be.
In 10 years of my husband playing Robert the Bruce or William Wallace at shows all over Scotland it is invariably visitors to Scotland who think Braveheart is true or a real story - the majority of British people know the story is not true. I chose British deliberately. Now its maybe likely that the people who come to see our shows are interested in History anyway so would be expected to have a better knowledge than someone who isnt but I havent seen anyone writing that Independence should be ours because "look what the english did to William Wallace" !!! Nor have I seen Braveheart being rolled out as a flag waving excercise for Nationalists. I rather think that in Scotland itself the film is viewed exactly as I have said - an entertaining work of fiction whilst William Wallace is clearly seen Important he is not on a par with Robert the Bruce and the stirring words of the declaration of Arbroath.
John Little
22-Feb-12, 23:23
My apologies - I was not thinking of such a sledgehammer effect though I see that I have given that impression.
It was more the effect of the film, accurate or not, in reinforcing a sense of grievance that I was thinking might be more dangerous. That sense of grievance is real enough and I have seen it on these forums.
That sense of grievance is founded on some concrete justification, for in the present set up of the UK, England is dominant by virtue of numbers. It does not have to be so.
But a sense of grievance has the potential to swing votes and should not be the elephant in the room.
Are you with the SCA? They appear to be a good outfit. I'd like to see one of your demonstrations.
The Braveheart fairytale does indeed portray the English as somewhat unsavoury way back when and i agree that when seen by certain type of person it can provoke ill feeling towards their neighbours south of the wall but when was the last time you tuned into any of Britains favourite soaps and seen the token scotsman as a nice fellow. They all turn out to be real nasty pieces of work.
John Little
22-Feb-12, 23:36
The Braveheart fairytale does indeed portray the English as somewhat unsavoury way back when and i agree that when seen by certain type of person it can provoke ill feeling towards their neighbours south of the wall but when was the last time you tuned into any of Britains favourite soaps and seen the token scotsman as a nice fellow. They all turn out to be real nasty pieces of work.
LOL! I will defer to what you say for I do not watch soaps.
I do see more nasty English pieces of work on films generally though; but they are often made in Hollywood.
My apologies - I was not thinking of such a sledgehammer effect though I see that I have given that impression.
It was more the effect of the film, accurate or not, in reinforcing a sense of grievance that I was thinking might be more dangerous. That sense of grievance is real enough and I have seen it on these forums.
That sense of grievance is founded on some concrete justification, for in the present set up of the UK, England is dominant by virtue of numbers. It does not have to be so.
But a sense of grievance has the potential to swing votes and should not be the elephant in the room.
Are you with the SCA? They appear to be a good outfit. I'd like to see one of your demonstrations.
The sense of grievance doesnt need to draw upon events of 700 years ago. There is plenty of stupid careless and thoughtless actions and words from the Tories Lib-Dems and Labour politicians to fuel THAT particular emotion. fancy David Cameron standing on front of the wrong coat of arms in Scotland the other day. And then the Uk government delegation invited the head of the Catholic church in England but not the HEad of the Catholic church in Scotland when he is also the head of the Catholic church in the UK. Thats only this last week. There is plenty there if people want to feel snubbed or need fuel for a grievance. It looks a bit like the UK government think that it doesnt matter - or that people dont care or that they cant be bothered and that doesnt go down well with nationalists and actually quite a lot of unionists too.
Nooooooooo we are not SCA. Too fierce for us. We are the Historic Saltire Society, we focus solely on medieval life and particularly the Scottish wars of Independence up to about 1411 and the battle of Harlaw. We have knights and fighters but we also put on a demonstation of medieval life and we have 60+ members ranging from 2 to 65. We set up a medieval camp and we have a medieval forge, food demonstration, calligraphy, weaponry, fletching, leatherwork, woolwork, sewing, dyeing, herbalist, childrens games and some other stuff.We have about 15 fighters who fight with swords, flails, axes and mace. We do a shiltron demonstration and have spear men and fighters who use pole arms. The weapons are blunted but hard and the fighters wear chainmail and surcoats and look amazing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrJKnv2FTQo This gives youa taste of what we do.
Tiz propaganda gone mad i tell thee. You must admit that the Englishman lends himself well to the role of Hollywood supervillain though.
Well i think i have strayed far enough from the original thread now.
John Little
23-Feb-12, 09:08
It is easy for London based politicians to take the Union for granted and that is a weakness of our non-existent constitution. It's always been more than slightly mad and if Scotland does vote to stay in the Union then there should be great changes and a new administrative centre whilst an English parliament remains at Westminster.
Scotland is in a position to insist on that and this should not be a re-run of '79.
That video is very cool and it looks as if you have great fun. Re-enactors do give a greater understanding of History by living the practicalities of it. I am thinking particularly of the attempts to make a working mangonel a few years back. As I recall, even with a Trebuchet they could not make it throw a stone very far.
focusRS - I agree that a sinister and silky English accent makes for a good film villain, but I have seen some damned fine portrayals of bad'uns done by Scots as well.
And don't worry about straying from this thread- it's mine and I like a wide-ranging craic. Narrowing down discussion is narrowing down debate and you miss some interesting stuff. Take Golach's post for example - that POW piece is fascinating; there's a book there, should he choose to write it.
George Brims
23-Feb-12, 09:46
Mel Gibson is an Actor emphasis on actor, who was born in Australia,
Born in the US actually though after the anti-semitic drunken rant I'm sure the people of upper New York State would rather think of him as an Aussie!
Born in the US actually though after the anti-semitic drunken rant I'm sure the people of upper New York State would rather think of him as an Aussie!
Sorry George, I had a sudden rush of euphoria, and got my facts mixed up, thanks for correcting me :(
Well if nothing else this thread has sparked a debate!
Over the years I have endevoured to learn some of the history of the country and it certainly makes for an interesting study but I am not sure that the constant harping back to the past wears well with the society that we now live in.
As a resident here by choice, the place I live in has more folk of non scot's descent that those that are which did surprise me to a certain extent but when I thought about it it was an obvious factor of "The Dounreay Effect."
I wonder just how much this would impact on the referrendum vote and what the ratio is of native scots to incomers in the country as a whole?
Oh well if the worst comes to the worst and with the mixed allegiances to the past in Caithness, may be some one should raise "The Raven Banner," and declare independence.
(Takes tongue out of cheek and dives for the bunker before a group of axe wielding men come storming up from the beach.)
John Little
23-Feb-12, 13:54
But surely the society we live in now is informed by the past? We do not live in a vacuum and cannot divorce ourselves from the experiences of our society, especially in the recent past.
If you control the version of the past that most people accept, then you can control to a very large extent what they will do or accept in the future. It leads to wars, secessions, genocides etc.
However the question of the ethnic origins of people is irrelevant in the Scottish Independence debate- just as it was in the American war of Independence when the British George Washington led forces against the British army (which was largely Hessian). That voters resident in Scotland should decide the issue is not controversial.
So when we speak of 'Scottish Nationalism' we are not speaking of an impulse to self determination by an ethnic group but of a similar impulse by a geographical and resident group; an aspiration of an heterogeneous group.
In an ideal world we would all take history on board but sadly we never seem to learn.
I am wondering why you think that the ancestry of people is irrelevant?
Surely those born and bred here have very different thoughts on the matter than those who have no direct connection?
To me nationalism is an anathema, I just don't understand it, I am proud of my origins but do not shout about them,feel no need to become independent, have no gripe about those who choose to learn the ancient language of my original home and those who choose not to.
From what I have heard self determination seems to be the main criteria of the whole thing .
That's 2 good posts and gets to the nitty gritty of the whole thing.
The roots of the movement are surely nationalistic? Although Lizz admits to no nationalistic pangs I'm sure that deep down she associates herself with something similar to nationalism. Dont we all? If I was pushed I would admit to being scots first without having to think about it. Wouldnt the English? Nationalism is a real human instinct.
I never saw the programme your talking about but Braveheart the movie painted a picture of the times, 800 years ago and shown me how little we have learn of the dangers of money, power and women.
I would n't know about The English gleeber as have never subscribed to that nationality.I have admitted to being British though, as is declared on my passport.
A feeling of belonging is sufficient for me and I don't think that quite equates to nationalism.
Nationalism doesnt get a good name because of the past. It doesnt have to be bad. Bad nationalism is usually associated with some kind of idealistic stance usually where a people are led to believe they are better than other nationalities. Scottish nationalism is not like that and neither is British nationalism unless its associated with something more sinister.
I would n't know about The English gleeber as have never subscribed to that nationality.I have admitted to being British though, as is declared on my passport.
A feeling of belonging is sufficient for me and I don't think that quite equates to nationalism.
Lizz, I could not have put that better, Thank you. Stick that in your pipe...an smoke it all followers of Eck!!!!
Lizz, I could not have put that better, Thank you. Stick that in your pipe...an smoke it all followers of Eck!!!!
In Fairness to Alex Salmond I would say that Scottish nationalism is no more sinister than Lizz's feeling of belonging. :lol:
John Little
24-Feb-12, 00:17
I am wondering why you think that the ancestry of people is irrelevant?
Surely those born and bred here have very different thoughts on the matter than those who have no direct connection? .
That is true but I mean it is irrelevant in a referendum where it does not matter where you are born and bred, In this referendum all residents of Scotland, wherever born and bred, have a vote - be they from Kazakhstan, Mongolia or Shangri-la.
On the other hand, 200 yards from where I sit there is a house with a tall flagpole in the front garden and the Saltire floats from that pole day and night- a small piece of Somerset which is forever Scotland.
Yet the man who raises that flag - it does not matter where he was born or bred- he will have no vote in the future of the country he is plainly bursting with pride about.
So it seems to me that born and bred has little to do with this issue.
But yes - I am British too. I never think of myself as English - simply could not with my family background.
In this referendum all residents of Scotland, wherever born and bred, have a vote - be they from Kazakhstan, Mongolia or Shangri-la.
Wow you know this as fact, even in deepest Zomerset? Because up here where the neverendum will take part, even we do not know!! You must have the ear of Eck.
John Little
24-Feb-12, 00:30
LOL! Irony is not your strongest point I fear, however I take your point - the matter of the franchise is still under discussion;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-16895691
Irrelevant, that's a sweeping statement!
John Little
24-Feb-12, 08:30
I do not think so. In the stuff that I read most commentators seem to think that all voters will have a say, regardless. If that is so then I would be glad if you would explain how ethnicity is a relevant factor in this poll.
I never mentioned ethnicity so please don't put words in my mouth.
My question was that surely people who are native scots and know their communities will view the matter with a different mindset to those who are not.
As this thread originally started about "Braveheart," the film, which most recognise as a good yarn but not very historically correct perhaps it should be taken into account that those who have a different hstory will have a different perspective, regardless of where they originate from.
The only midset that should matter is what will offer the best oprion for Scotland and the people living here. Most people - unionist and nationalist want this single thing - All exc ept my husband lol who would have independence at ANY cost - even if we were going to be worse off for fifty years.
John Little
24-Feb-12, 12:06
I never mentioned ethnicity so please don't put words in my mouth.
My question was that surely people who are native scots and know their communities will view the matter with a different mindset to those who are not.
As this thread originally started about "Braveheart," the film, which most recognise as a good yarn but not very historically correct perhaps it should be taken into account that those who have a different hstory will have a different perspective, regardless of where they originate from.
You may not have mentioned the word 'ethnicity' but we are talking about ethnicity are we not?
i would not dispute that 'native born Scots' (what are they???) would have a different mindset to those who are born in other places and come from different cultures.
My point is that as far as the referendum is concerned, if all voters have a say, then where they come from is irrelevant.
I see this as a truism ; you see it as an irrelevant and sweeping generalisation.
I am trying to draw a distinction between 'Scottish' Nationalism and Scottish 'Nationalism' and to ask - is there a difference?
And if it is 'Scottish' Nationalism, then who is a Scot?
And if a 'Scot' is native born or of unimpeachable 'Scottish' background, then what justification is there for the suggestion that expatriates be excluded from the poll?
On the other hand if it is Scottish 'Nationalism' and EU citizens resident in Scotland are to vote, then is it 'Scottish'? Indeed is it 'Nationalism'?
You see I find the whole thing rather confusing and full of pitfalls.
It is not a simple matter and I am trying to get my head round it.
I would refer you to squidge's post, she summed the matter up very well.
John Little
24-Feb-12, 12:57
The pleasure of reading Squidge's posts is that she usually does sum things up very well.
But which post do you mean?
If you mean this;
"The only midset that should matter is what will offer the best oprion for Scotland and the people living here. Most people - unionist and nationalist want this single thing "
then it does not clear my mind at all.
Whose mindset are you speaking of?
People living in and registered to vote in Scotland?
Native born Scots? (define)
750,000 Scots registered to vote and living in England.
Thousands of Scots living abroad?
Do they also get a say in what is best for Scotland?
Or not?
And why?
People living in and registered to vote in Scotland?
Native born Scots? (define)
750,000 Scots registered to vote and living in England.
Thousands of Scots living abroad?
Do they also get a say in what is best for Scotland? Or not? And why?
Thats the question all we native born Scots and registered voters in Scotland want to know. As you seem to hold the only true opinion of us Scots, please let us know ASAP, we would be grateful.
porshiepoo
24-Feb-12, 13:10
The Braveheart fairytale does indeed portray the English as somewhat unsavoury way back when and i agree that when seen by certain type of person it can provoke ill feeling towards their neighbours south of the wall but when was the last time you tuned into any of Britains favourite soaps and seen the token scotsman as a nice fellow. They all turn out to be real nasty pieces of work.
I agree.
Way back then both Scots and English were an unsavoury bunch - or at least had the ability to be.
For all the atrocities carried out by England, Scotland did very much the same - it was the way of the world back then.
What never ceases to suprise me is the hostility emanating from certain people for actions that were carried out hundreds of years ago and that in truth have no relevance (or at least shouldn't) to how we should live and interact with one another now.
As for William Wallace. The film was great as long as the viewer can accept it for just what it is - fairytale!
Unfortunately I have come across many Scots (younger ones granted) that actually do believe in the hype surrounding the film. Many many youngsters choose to believe that 'Braveheart' is a factual film based on documented evidence. I wonder how many have actually take the time to research not just William Wallace but Edward I and Edward II.
Edward Longshanks was far from the ruthless murderous monster depicted in the film. He did have a thick skin granted but he was completely in love with and devoted to his first wife and her death affected him deeply.
His relationship with his son Edward was nothing like that in the film either nor did Edward I kill Piers Gaveston, he was in fact murdered by a couple of welshmen at the order of the Earl of Lancaster.
Still I guess it's more exciting to believe that William Wallace was not a rapist or a thief who spent more time abroad than he did actually fighting!
John Little
24-Feb-12, 13:12
LOLOL!
Oh I have been nibbled by the Org rottweiler. Help me please.
I swore a promise a few weeks ago that I would no longer post on your threads- you did not see fit to return the favour.
Where, in my asking questions, do you imagine that I have the answers?
Maybe you don't like questions.
I know you don't like me, but there again there's a lot of folk you don't like so I would probably feel left out if I didn't get a nip or two.
I am honoured by your attention and grateful that you think my thoughts worthy of comment.
Many would not bother.
I understand that the vote will be for those living in Scotland. Those commonwealth and EU citizens who are entitled to vote. IF you are a member of the armed forces serving away from home you will be able to vote. Thos expats who want to vote can move back to Scotland if it is their passionate need to vote. If you live here, work here have your home here and are therefore INVESTED in the future wellbeing of Scotland then You will be able to vote. Thats all.Thats all there needs to be. The issue of ethnicity is a smokescreen and is designed to confuse and alarm. There is nothing to suggest that this vote is about ethnicity and it annoys me so much when people suggest it is as a way to scare the electorate by trying to tar Scottish Nationalism with the fascist brush.
Those people living elsewhere are not invested in Scotland in the same way as those living here. They may love Scotland passionately but they are not making an investment in its future and its policies in the same way as those of us living here. Many people have sneered at those wanting to vote with their hearts not their heads but then go on to say ex-pats should be able to do exactly that. I think the decision to leave out ex-pats is absolutely right and a clear indication that what I have jist said about ethnicity is true.
This is a post I am copying from Facebook.
I'm a Scottish Nationalist, and probably the most Patriotic Scotsman you know. I'm rabid. It's okay to call me that, I won't be insulted, I know I'm rabid. But I'm not racist. I don't hate the English or any other Nationality. I don't even hate the Union, but I do hate people who do Scotland wrong. And that includes talking Scotland down, like pretty much all of the Unionists are doing at the moment. (Cause they can't talk the union up...) I don't care if you're English or not, if you're disrespectful to Scotland I'll not like you regardless of your nationality. And that includes if you're English or if you're Indian or even if you're another SCOT!!! This is the best wee country in the world, and I'll not hear different. You English can go away and be proud of your nation and proud of your union, just like America and Canada and every other country. I'm not stopping you, in fact I encourage it!!! But don't talk Scotland down. I never talk England down (Just the south of it or it's politicians) I've nothing against England or English people. That's not true actually, there are plenty of English people I don't like, but it's not because they are English, there will be other reasons for it. But I don't hate any people because of the place of their birth. I believe Scotland is a Nation in its own right and as such has the right to choose to govern itself. The people have a right to choose independence if they want and I for one hope and expect they will do so.
Says it all really
John Little
24-Feb-12, 16:32
Thank you Squidge.
That is clear as crystal.
As ever you are more effective than Cillit Bang in clearing things up. :)
I just have an opinion thats all - its no more nor less valid than others who have posted on this thread but I do try to say what I see and be objective.
Interesting. I wonder if very soon (and it will need to be) we will see a mass return of prodigals. Maybe that is what Eck is counting on and the reason for the delay.
It won't do the housing market any harm. :D
John Little
24-Feb-12, 16:51
Interesting. I wonder if very soon (and it will need to be) we will see a mass return of prodigals. Maybe that is what Eck is counting on and the reason for the delay.
It won't do the housing market any harm. :D
How long do you have to be resident in Scotland to qualify for the vote?
How long do you have to be resident in Scotland to qualify for the vote?
I don't know, I guess as long as it takes to get on the Electoral roll? You thinking of flitting again? :lol:
I understand that the vote will be for those living in Scotland. Those commonwealth and EU citizens who are entitled to vote. IF you are a member of the armed forces serving away from home you will be able to vote. Thos expats who want to vote can move back to Scotland if it is their passionate need to vote. If you live here, work here have your home here and are therefore INVESTED in the future wellbeing of Scotland then You will be able to vote. Thats all.Thats all there needs to be. The issue of ethnicity is a smokescreen and is designed to confuse and alarm. There is nothing to suggest that this vote is about ethnicity and it annoys me so much when people suggest it is as a way to scare the electorate by trying to tar Scottish Nationalism with the fascist brush.
Those people living elsewhere are not invested in Scotland in the same way as those living here. They may love Scotland passionately but they are not making an investment in its future and its policies in the same way as those of us living here. Many people have sneered at those wanting to vote with their hearts not their heads but then go on to say ex-pats should be able to do exactly that. I think the decision to leave out ex-pats is absolutely right and a clear indication that what I have jist said about ethnicity is true.
Squidge, I would love to see and hear where these facts come from, I have heard nothing from Eck and his party. Are School children getting the Vote? Are Scots born who chose to live and work out with Scotland getting the vote? All Questions I would like to see answers for.
John Little
24-Feb-12, 17:02
I don't know, I guess as long as it takes to get on the Electoral roll? You thinking of flitting again? :lol:
LOL! I would have no objection to living in Scotland but Mrs L would not wear it.
Anyway - we just got here!
My sister was born in Thurso and ponces about wearing a Scotland shirt for some reason. So maybe it's just as well that 'native born' does not qualify as she does not live there either.
Squidge, I would love to see and hear where these facts come from, I have heard nothing from Eck and his party. Are School children getting the Vote? Are Scots born who chose to live and work out with Scotland getting the vote? All Questions I would like to see answers for.
I certainly did not say they were facts however, all the discussion and debate has indicated the above to be true - conversely golach there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING being said which suggests - as you have done that people like me - english - will not be able to vote. I refer you back to a post I made recently and copy it here for you.
It may not be written in Stone but
The SNP government proposes that the vote should be open to British and Commonwealth citizens resident in Scotland and armed forces or civil service personnel serving in the UK or overseas.
But its referendum consultation document published last month also states that citizens of EU countries resident in Scotland should also be allowed to participate, a category that is denied a vote in UK general elections.
The Scottish Government has adopted that approach on the basis that it was the format used when Scotland went to the polls in 1997 for the devolution referendum.
from http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-...plit_1_2097653 (http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/uk/scottish_independence_60_000_from_eu_get_vote_on_s cots_split_1_2097653)
where is anything that suggests that non ethnic scots will be disallowed a vote?
I certainly did not say they were facts however, all the discussion and debate has indicated the above to be true - conversely golach there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING being said which suggests - as you have done that people like me - english - will not be able to vote. I refer you back to a post I made recently and copy it here for you.
It may not be written in Stone but
from http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-...plit_1_2097653 (http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/uk/scottish_independence_60_000_from_eu_get_vote_on_s cots_split_1_2097653)
where is anything that suggests that non ethnic scots will be disallowed a vote?
Squidge I have never suggested that non ethnic Scots should be debared from voting on the neverendum, I would say once we are told the question on the paper, that all persons living in Scotland, registered on the voters roll, aged 18, should be allowed to vote. That includes all mentioned by the Tory Scottish Office minister in the article you posted. But, where has Eck and his lot agreed to this?.
Here from the referendum consultation
- asks whether 16 and 17 year-olds who are on the electoral register should be eligible to vote in the referendum. With this exception, eligibility will be the same as for Scottish Parliament and local government elections and for the 1997 referendum on devolution. This reflects the internationally accepted principle that the franchise for
constitutional referendums should be determined by residency and the Scottish Government’s view that sovereignty lies with the people of
Scotland.
And its also in the article i posted if you can be bothered to read it
A wee question. If we went independent on Sunday would Scotland wake up financially better off on Monday? Yes, No or the same.
I know little or nothing about politics as i am a simple soul with simple interests.
I think that everything would be the same for quite a while. It would take time to unravel everything. The unionists might say we would wake up worse off, the nationalists that we would be better off. Take your pick lol
Meet the new boss same as the old boss.
Am posting this here because I found it interesting and amusing. It does however come with a HUGE health warning. It is massively nationalist. Hugely completely and unambiguously Nationalist. No sitting on the fence, no beating about the bush no swithering, dillydallying or shilly shallying. It is NATIONALIST. I found it by following a link off facebook - it isnt my news site of choice - too biased for me lol. In the interest of fairness I did look for a unionist point of view but I couldnt find one. Enjoy!!!http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/4341-a-unionist-lexicon-an-a-z-of-unionist-scare-stories-myths-and-misinformation
That was some article. It would be interesting to read something similar from a unionist.
John Little
24-Feb-12, 22:59
I do not think that there is something similar from a Unionist.
It is far easier to attack the status quo than to defend it. And the Union, with all its faults, is an easy mark.
The article makes some very valid points.
What is the purpose of the Union?
It puts me in mind of what Mrs Banderanaike, Prime Minister of Sri Lanka said when she was asked what the purpose of the Commonwealth was- that she could see no earthly use for it, but on the whole she felt that it was better to be in it than outside it.
One thing is sure - Scottish Unionists must make a far better case than they have done to this point. Nationalism has them on the back foot and, seemingly, is all the rage.
Thanks for the link squidge, I was falling about laughing at some of the very tongue in cheek comments.
John Little
26-Feb-12, 12:31
Do 'Cybernats' exist?
If they do exist, are they 'Bravehearts' fighting their cause? Champions for the right.
Do they inject an unnecessary note of unpleasantness into the debate?
http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/politics/lord_robertson_calls_on_snp_to_condemn_cybernat_ab use_1_2119053
Or is all fair game?
achingale
26-Feb-12, 15:08
Going back to Braveheart, it is a Hollywood take on legend but I think it gave Scots a sense of Scottishness and a pride in that. I have no idea if it had a bearing on politics or not but regardless, we are a changed nation from that of the 1990s. We have a Parliament and a chance to have our say in a few years time. Braveheart effect? I do not know. Golach - Mel Gibson was born in the USA then the family moved out to Australia when he was 12 so he is American by birth, Australian by default :confused
Golach - Mel Gibson was born in the USA then the family moved out to Australia when he was 12 so he is American by birth, Australian by default :confused
I already apologised for my faux pas, do try and keep up. [lol]
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.