|
What is it all about and can they be serious?
I always thought of Britain as an entity made up of various countries, and Scotland as one of them has had is fair share of shaping and forming Britain. It has contributed hugely to Englands history, giving it kings, queens, and democracy to a large degree, scientists, engineers, leaders and politicians. I don't see how there can be any ill will towards England, even if nominally it was a conquering force at first, it certainly hasn't been since!
So whats the beef if any?
Or is it just money, do they want al the oil revenue for themselves and is it enough even if they achieve it?
One result is a Labour govt will never be elected again to London; Scotland is a big labour voter.
Anyone else have any insight on this because I see it as a half baked piece of unjustified lunacy.
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: I see it as a half baked piece of unjustified lunacy.
Never have I seen a more accurate description of Scotland and her people! 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
A couple of small corrections. Scottish independence will have no effect on the countries that make up Great Britain. They will still be part of GB. What they are looking for independence from is the United Kingdom.
|
|
|
|
|
Don't let facts get in the way!
|
|
|
|
|
Where did I once mention Great Britain?
Read my clarification to Pete.
|
|
|
|
|
You mentioned Britain twice in your original post.
|
|
|
|
|
Read my clarification to Pete.
|
|
|
|
|
You start talking about British and Britishness in there, which is not the same thing. Your reference to Britain in your first message was incorrect, as Pete pointed out.
|
|
|
|
|
Well done, you found something to criticise on the internet. You must feel much better now.
|
|
|
|
|
That's just the response I was expecting.
|
|
|
|
|
That must make you feel even better than!
|
|
|
|
|
GB is a geographical term relating to a greater population of Brythonic Celts as opposed to the smaller population in france.
However none of this has anything to do with Scottish independence. The term 'British' is not the same as GB, its a collective term for the inhabitants of the UK, even if technically incorrect, and represents those people abroad: The British Empire, British stiff upper lip, British way of life, etc. Scotland made up a large part of that and had a huge input into it. Britishness and the UK is as much theirs as it is England's!
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: However none of this has anything to do with Scottish independence.
Of course it has. It has huge implications on the role of independence and is part of the reason that things are so muddied over here. For instance, Scotland would still have the Queen as head of state, even if they took independence because of this.
|
|
|
|
|
OK, you are talking about cross purposes. I am talking about Britishness, not GB.
Hang on, so you are saying Scotland wants to leave the UK but keep the Queen as head of state? So it becomes a kind of 'big channel islands'?
AND they want to keep the pound? 
What sort of independence is that?
Dear oh Christ, I thought at least the Scots were serious!
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: Hang on, so you are saying Scotland wants to leave the UK but keep the Queen as head of state? So it becomes a kind of 'big channel islands'?
Yup. I believe it's referred to as "having your cake and eating it".
|
|
|
|
|
Looking a prat more like! 
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: "having your cake haggis? and eating it".
... Clootie Dumpling, deep fried Mars bar ...
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: GB is a geographical term relating to a greater population of Brythonic Celts as opposed to the smaller population in france.
No it isn't.
Britons who fled the British isles (whether they were descended from Celtic invaders or not) named the part of France they landed in with the same name of the place they had just fled, so one became known as "Big Britain", and the other just as "Britain".
It had nothing to do with the Celts, except that some of those who fled the British Isles could trace their families back to Celtic invaders.
Munchies_Matt wrote: The term 'British' is not the same as GB, its a collective term for the inhabitants of the UK, even if technically incorrect, and represents those people abroad: The British Empire, British stiff upper lip, British way of life, etc.
What on Earth are you prattling on about?
"British" is an adjective meaning "something to do with Britain (the big one)", so the only way that it's "not the same as GB" is that GB is a noun, and British is an adjective (that has bugger all to do with "collective terms", whatever the Hell you mean by that).
I suggest that you Google on how not to be rude to people and how to admit having made mistakes.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: You should try some education, you might find it helps.
I'm afraid that my four years of formal education and thirty years of private research (much of which is published) trumps your five minutes with Google.
You claimed that "GB is a geographical term relating to a greater population of Brythonic Celts".
That is absolutely wrong, and you are either lazy, stupid, or naive for thinking it. Google deeper.
Or don't. I'm not interested in getting into this on a dev board.
The rest of your comments that I replied to simply prove that your knowledge of English grammar is abysmal.
Your latest comments simply add to the proof that the first few results from Google should not be used as the basis of an academic work.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: You claimed that "GB is a geographical term relating to a greater population
of Brythonic Celts".
That is absolutely wrong
No I am not. Look at the evidence I provided. Brittany is small britain, great Britain is its counter part. Two populations of Briton, Breton, breizh, Brythonic celt... chose your name, they all mean the same... one big, one small.
Those are the facts, you can accept them or not, see if I care.
|
|
|
|
|
When you grow up, you may find that you will learn the capacity to admit when you have made silly errors.
Your life will be much more difficult until you do.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good Lord!
You actually believe that you can troll me!
What a joke!
Let's look at your contributions, so far:
"GB is a geographical term relating to a greater population of Brythonic Celts as opposed to the smaller population in france."
Totally wrong.
GB has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Brythonic Celts. By the time it became known as GB, it was largely Anglo-Saxon. It is clear that you had Googled, found a cool sounding term, and decided to show everyone how clever you are (at Googling and finding incorrect information, unfortunately).
So I corrected you with:
"Britons who fled the British isles (whether they were descended from Celtic invaders or not) named the part of France they landed in with the same name of the place they had just fled, so one became known as "Big Britain", and the other just as "Britain".
It had nothing to do with the Celts, except that some of those who fled the British Isles could trace their families back to Celtic invaders."
Absolutely correct (right down to writing "Grande Bretagne" and Bretagne" in English, rather than French).
In true troll fashion, you changed your story to the next totally irrelevant information that you found on Google:
"The reason is simply because 'British' today include Goedlic and Pictish Celts, what we would call Gaelic. Technically, Gaelic and Britanic are two different celtic groups."
I'd lost interest, by then, so, as well as letting slide the fact that you had proven that you do not know what nouns and adjectives are, I also did not challenge your latest garbage (e.g. by telling you to prove that there are "Goedlic and Pictish Celts" in Britain today -- but feel free to go out and look for some anyway, even though I didn't bother to challenge your cr@p).
And now, in truer than true troll fashion, you are pretending that none of the cr@p you said had been said (including the demonstration that you don't know what nouns and adjectives are, and the even greater demonstration that you understand nothing whatsoever about the history of GB and its peoples), and are presenting a rephrase of my initial correction to your garbage as if it were all your own work.
Now, I know that you will need to have the final word, because you probably believe that someone other than you and I will ever look at this thread, and you'll need them to believe that you're a genius and great debater, so go ahead.
Note, however, that you will be the only person in the entire world who will read your words -- and this is me talking.
You would probably act grand and say things like that in an attempt to sound impressive, but then would read any reply within seconds of it's being sent.
Me, I don't give a toss about what you you find on Google, nor am I interested in how much you need to boost your ego by attempting to win (what you consider to be) an argument.
You've already made yourself far more foolish than I enjoy witnessing, so I'm plonking this thread.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: <bollocks snipped....="">
Read the facts idiot.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
