FREEDOM!!!! [2]

"A dedicated venue will be set up in Glasgow during the Commonwealth Games to welcome lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people to the city.
The Scottish government will contribute £25,000 towards the initiative.
The first Pride House was organised for the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics. The Russian authorities blocked moves for one at the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics.
The Scottish government said Pride House in Glasgow would "provide a welcoming place" for people to view the Commonwealth Games and "enjoy the events and cultural programmes" around it."- BBC


Good stuff. And good on the Scottish government for finding some cash in these austere times to stump up towards it too.

Talking money-

"Although the oil and gas is now tougher to extract, the reserves are substantial - between 15 billion and 24 billion barrels of oil equivalent - meaning possibly another 30 to 40 years of production. And there could be new discoveries such as the fields west of Shetland.
Sir Ian recommended a new arms-length regulator to oversee the industry.
He said the UK government's Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) was "significantly under resourced and far too thinly spread" to effectively manage the increasingly complex business and operating environment.
Sir Ian said a 38% fall in production over the past three years had cost the Treasury £6bn in lost taxes and declining exploration threatened more missed opportunities.
It is claimed that Sir Ian's recommendations could result in the equivalent of three to four billion more barrels of oil being recovered from the North Sea over the next 20 years, bringing in more than £200bn to the UK economy."- BBC

Or 200bilion to the Scottish economy split among only 5 million if we are independent!

"Prime Minister Cameron has insisted that the "broad shoulders" of the UK government are best able to support investment in the industry.
He warned that volatility in the oil market could have a dramatic effect on Scottish finances in the event of independence, with the smaller economy less able to absorb the impact of a fall in revenue."

Yes its a terrible burden having all this oil, just terrible, how will we cope! I mean its not like a small country could manage an oil fund, or manage the industry. I mean imagine somewhere as small as Norway say doing that! Preposterous!......oh wait a minute!

I dont understand why anyone would want to celebrate a 700 year old battle where the English got slaughtered. and want to reenact it in glorious technicolour. The English dont reenact Flodden.    its bizarre.

Why do we commemorate the dead on both sides in WW1 when many, many more died?

Bannockburn was a huge moment in Scottish history why would we not remember it?
We commemorate Culloden too and we got our arses handed to us on a plate at that one by the English.

We are remembering our dead, and what they fought and died for. Its part of maintaining a continuing thread in the fabric of our culture.

Or do you see remembering English war dead as just a way of annoying the Germans?  
Surely standing for a minutes silence once every year is also therefore 'bizarre'.

I dont fully understand why but you seem keen to try to find reasons for why the referendum is all about hating England- when that has nothing to do with it.
Not everything is about England you know.

well its one thing remembering our countries united against the threat of facism within human memory, and another a battle 700 years ago where your next door neighbours and friends got killed. Its ok to remember battles but not to glorify them uncessarily. it seems incendiary and divisive.

and for the record I think we should remember the trouble the Orange marches spread in Belfast and Northern ireland, its all a form of stirring up old hatreds, I dont understand it.

What evidence do you have that the commemorating the anniversaries of important battles is being glorified?

We remember them on every anniversary- there are re-enactments ect every time.
Just as in America you can go see civil war re enactments on their anniversaries.

Most countries remember the major battles of their history in some fashion. Its not my fault England has a cultural identity crisis thats been on the go since 1066!

I can only say it so many times- people in Scotland are voting on the future of Scotland, the grievances are with the democratic deficit at Westminster, the differences in political direction between our two countries, and the massive mismanagement of Scottish resources which have been shamelessly squandered and kept from the people.

Hating the English is not on the agenda. We do not live in the past dressed like William Wallace and spending all our days hating on England. This is an English myth you seem to have bought into hook, line and sinker.

Is it any wonder we feel England does not treat us an equal with any respect when this is the view you have of us- that we would want a referendum and decide our countries future based purely on the result of a 700 year old battle. Its as laughable as it is sad and ludicrous.

''Its not my fault England has a cultural identity crisis thats been on the go since 1066!''

what kind of dumbass comment is that? I am merely stating my opinion, not attacking your identity. Am I not allowed to question things? please dont start on with tit for tat crap.

erm not hating on the English or anything.    duh!

The Civil War (aka the War between the States) is remembered all over America and its battles are reenacted by thousands of reenactors each year. Then there are the Abraham Lincoln impersonators, the Gettysburg Address being read publicly, the whole slavery issue...

It goes on and on, and you'd think it would be divisive, but if anything it unites the country in remembering what we fought each other over 150 years ago.

I can't say I understand why, but these sorts of rituals seem to be fundamental in some way.

erm not hating on the English or anything......what kind of dumbass comment is that? - Mrs Figg

Tolkiens. I put the 1066 reference in as this is a Tolkien forum and I thought folk would get the reference to Tolkien believing England lost its identity with the arrival of the French- guess not though.   Maybe Tolkien just hated the english too.


You are the only person who has mentioned Bannockburn to me, at all in recent months. Out of all the discussions I have had with family and friends over the referendum Bannockbun has never once been mentioned.
Nobody here sees it as part of the referendum or having any bearing on it- why would they?
The only people who seem to connect the two are English people. I can only assume out of a mixture of genuine ignorance and stereotyping of Scots as a nation.

well to be fair America is a Young country and probably needs a sense of belonging and struggle for Independance more than the UK does. In your case it probably helps coming to terms with the enormity of it all. maybe its a healing process. The Scottish still after 700 years seem to have a bit of a chip on their shoulder they get so sensitive.

Our 'chip' is not about 700 years ago its about now. Its about not having a voice, its about watching our resources disappear without any apparent benefits arising from them. Its about watching the country go ever right of centre whilst we vote left.
Its about being ignored, about our neighbour knowing us so little after all this time they think we make hugely important decision based on ancient battles and flag waving.

It has nothing at all to do with some old battle- that would just be silly.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:erm not hating on the English or anything......what kind of dumbass comment is that? - Mrs Figg

Tolkiens. I put the 1066 reference in as this is a Tolkien forum and I thought folk would get the reference to Tolkien believing England lost its identity with the arrival of the French- guess not though.   Maybe Tolkien just hated the english too.


You are the only person who has mentioned Bannockburn to me, at all in recent months. Out of all the discussions I have had with family and friends over the referendum Bannockbun has never once been mentioned.
Nobody here sees it as part of the referendum or having any bearing on it- why would they?
The only people who seem to connect the two are English people. I can only assume out of a mixture of genuine ignorance and stereotyping of Scots as a nation.

well congratulations for being a Tolkien smart arse. Does it make you feel all smug and superior? boy you really cant take an English person discussing on your thread can you? I have merely asked a few questions and all you do is go on the attack.

Look, I can tell I missed something while I was gone. But let me wade into the tit-for-tat thing.

I really enjoy hearing both your points of view, Figg and Petty.  I have no trouble seeing both of your points of view, and taken together they're better than either one alone.

What I don't hear from either of you too often is something like "I respect your point of view. Here's mine." I made this mistake in the heat of typing once when Amarie responded to a story I'd told, and I'm afraid I was misunderstood. It happens on the internet.

Both of you have strong opinions. We love that here. But not the tit-for-tat. It's not fun for you folks, and it's not fun for us.

I am not attacking anything, I am defending against a stereotype.
You have portrayed Scots as a nation of haters with a 700 year old chip on our shoulders who want independence jut to get back at England.
I thought that sort of stereotyping of Scots had died out long ago.
I am annoyed, and rightly so, but not so much as I am disappointed that  that is your view of modern Scotland and its people.

I think Petty mistakes my questions as personal slights on his identity. They are not. Its hard to discuss with him because he immediately goes on the defensive. I am merely asking about things I find interesting or puzzling, I havent made personal slights against Salmond, I asked what his reaction might be, and i genuinely find celebrating bloody battles between fellow Brits in this day and age, a bit like the stuff going on and on in Ireland, all that Nationalistic sectarian crap really makes me sick to the stomach. But I do respect Pettys views and opinions I just wish he wasnt so touchy.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I am not attacking anything, I am defending against a stereotype.
You have portrayed Scots as a nation of haters with a 700 year old chip on our shoulders who want independence jut to get back at England.
I thought that sort of stereotyping of Scots had died out long ago.
I am annoyed, and rightly so, but not so much as I am disappointed that  that is your view of modern Scotland and its people.

you are putting your own stereotype of English people on me. oh the irony! ''getting back at England'' thats just very silly.

I just read back through our discussion Figg- and I was not being touchy- I have answered each of your points with the evidence. I never once name called, or made derogatory remarks abut you.
Yet you called me a 'smart arse', 'smug' and accused me of acting 'superior'.
It is not my hostility that is puzzling here as I am displaying none.

I have answered all your questions and merely explained why I believe your view of Scotland is erroneous and misinformed.
I always respect your views but some of what you say is like me claiming everyone in England is a morris dancer who wants to fight the French to get them back for 1066.

Its just not the case at all. And I am sure if I did so you would point out that my view of the English was not at all accurate.

Mrs Figg wrote: But I do respect Pettys views and opinions I just wish he wasnt so touchy.

I know that, Mrs Figg. To me it's quite clear in your writing {{at least until you get riled and roll up your sleaves   }}. But obviously Petty misses the tone, especially when he's got his teeth into a subject.

Look, using quotations to prove who was disrespectful to whom isn't going to be helpful to either of you.  
Ever.
Just saying.... {{   }}

I just dont like being accused of being disrespectful David when I have not been- and if I have to quote the evidence to prove that point then so be it.
I seem to get accused a lot on here of being the aggressor, when it often, as in this case, does not feel that way from my side of things.
Reading back through it all I have done is answer each of Figg's points as I see it, despite some of the things she has said being quite offensive to me as a Scot.

yes Dave, unfortunately I think Petty goes in thinking the worst from the outset and he thinks I am somehow trying to undermine his views and then it all goes apeshit. which is a shame. I dont think he would react the same if Eldo or you were discussing this with him, maybe because I am English it makes it worse somehow. Like he thinks its personal. Its an emotive subject specially between our two countries and perhaps its better if I dont debate Scottish stuff. There is a lot I dont understand about the sectarian goings on in Scotland, and some things run deep, it all seems so alien to me and all I see are divisions and bad feeling, its sad.

Pettytyrant101 wrote: despite some of the things she has said being quite offensive to me as a Scot.

like what?

I can see your point too Petty. I can see you trying to answer Mrs Figg's questions as asked, but I can also see how your debating style can be perceived as an attack on her point of view.

She then gets bristly, as redheads sometimes do. That's as deep as it goes, I'm thinking.

But trying to prove that you didn't do anything wrong, even if you didn't, is what she's referrign to as you getting defensive. That's not a winnable position, and it just makes the situation worse.

this debating lark is hard work   

The point I have been trying (in vain it sees) to make is that the independence vote is not divisive, especially not about the english.
We want a future where our two countries are, in Salmonds words, 'equal partners and best friends'.

The referendum is not about the English. Especially not the english people, most of us, myself included have english family members. My brother is married to an english woman,my nieces are half english.
Hatred of the english is a non starter.

The referendum on the Yes side is a positive campaign about a positive future for Scotland.

You have to get this notion out of your head that we are sitting up here draped in tartan, musing on old grievances and grumbling about the english- it just doesn't happen. We are not the people you seem to think we are.
And I find that disappointing and depressing.


"But trying to prove that you didn't do anything wrong, even if you didn't, is what she's referring to as you getting defensive. That's not a winnable position, and it just makes the situation worse."- David

Surely better then if she did not call me names in the first place.   


"She then gets bristly, as redheads sometimes do."

She isnt the only redhead in this discussion!

Mrs Figg wrote:yes Dave, unfortunately I think Petty goes in thinking the worst from the outset and he thinks I am somehow trying to undermine his views and then it all goes apeshit. which is a shame. I dont think he would react the same if Eldo or you were discussing this with him, maybe because I am English it makes it worse somehow. Like he thinks its personal. Its an emotive subject specially between our two countries and perhaps its better if I dont debate Scottish stuff. There is a lot I dont understand about the sectarian goings on in Scotland, and some things run deep, it all seems so alien to me and all I see are divisions and bad feeling, its sad.

And this is EXACTLY why your discussions are so fascinating to me as an outsider!  

But I think of both of you as friends as well, so I hope you can find the safe ground between you to keep these discussions going without beating each other up too badly!