Aberdeen - The city outpacing even London's property boom

Jonbvn

CLAPTON wrote: »

there is clear support in Scotland for it's widespread use for the 'official' song for rugby, football, games etc.


why?
is it because the people want to show love and affection to the English?

Who do you think the enemies are in the "English" anthem?;)

O Lord our God arise,
Scatter her enemies,
And make them fall:
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On Thee our hopes we fix:
God save us all.

beecher2

CLAPTON wrote: »

there is clear support in Scotland for it's widespread use for the 'official' song for rugby, football, games etc.


why?
is it because the people want to show love and affection to the English?

I'd hazard a guess it is because we all know the words!

BTW, do you feel that the wish of some Basques and Quebecois for self determination is purely due to racism and hatred? Just wondering if you can ever see a positive case for self determination.

CLAPTON

Jonbvn wrote: »

Who do you think the enemies are in the "English" anthem?;)

O Lord our God arise,
Scatter her enemies,
And make them fall:
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On Thee our hopes we fix:
God save us all.

The UK anthem is from a previous era.

Historical, we did, indeed fight amoungst each other; religion, claims to the throne, power, territory etc.

By and large, only the first verse is used on the vast majority of occasions.

I would suggest that if we introduced a new anthem today we would not choose one that celebrated a historic battle either within the UK or indeed against any overseas countries.


What I find shocking about the Flower of Scotland is that it is recently introduced and appears to have quite widespread support, not just amoungst the drunks on a Saturday but amoungst the top people running important sports and the wider population.

Why ever, would a country like Scotland, with such a rich history choose such an unpleasant subject to present is best face to the world?

It does Scotland no credit.

CLAPTON

beecher2 wrote: »

I'd hazard a guess it is because we all know the words!

BTW, do you feel that the wish of some Basques and Quebecois for self determination is purely due to racism and hatred? Just wondering if you can ever see a positive case for self determination.

yes I see lots of situation where there is a strong case for countries to be independent of each other

- where there is a history of hatred, fighting, murder e.g Yugoslavia, many middle eastern states

-where there has been a recent history of oppression ; e.g many of the old Soviet union republics that have been oppressed for hundreds of years by Russia then USSR

-where there have been irreconcilable differences in religion etc e.g. Pakistan, India, North/South Sudan and the horn of Africa.


What I don't see is many situations where democratic countries without a recent history of oppression or discrimination choose to break up.

I know insufficient about the Basques or the situation in Quebec but I could image that they might well harbour deep long held resentments, like the Scots, irrespective of any current objective circumstances.

I do feel that if the Scots do indeed feel such deep resent against the English, then maybe it is better to go our separate ways, even if both parties are worse off.

beecher2

Can you see no situations where a country simply wants to determine their own future? Can you really not envisage that there is every a positive case for self determination?

CLAPTON

beecher2 wrote: »

Can you see no situations where a country simply wants to determine their own future? Can you really not envisage that there is every a positive case for self determination?

I don't know of no democratic long standing peaceful country where one part has broken away, simply because they fancied being independent except where there are other factors operating.

In the case of Scotland, they seem not be be seeking independence as they want to immediately give most of the powers away to Europe.

So one just has to ask why do that?

Now maybe if the peoples of Europe were massively richer than the UK or some other substantial benefit then it might make selfish self interest.

However that doesn't seem to be the case and we are left with a deep seated wish of some of the people of Scotland to simply want to separate from the English even if they are worse off.

zagubov

CLAPTON wrote: »

I don't know of no democratic long standing peaceful country where one part has broken away, simply because they fancied being independent except where there are other factors operating.

In the case of Scotland, they seem not be be seeking independence as they want to immediately give most of the powers away to Europe.

They've got enough parliaments. The one in Edinburgh which seems to be working well but hasn't enough power, and the one in Brussels that the Westminster one put in charge of them, and that they might let have some power over them.

It's the one in the middle, th Westminster one, that they feel may have let them down and is going under the microscope.

Each of the three parliaments may be loaned sovereignty by the Scottish people but one of them may soon face having it taken back.

Each parliament is there to serve the people in Scotland well, or, failing that, to be replaced. What is so strange about that, that you cannot understand it?

CLAPTON

zagubov wrote: »

They've got enough parliaments. The one in Edinburgh which seems to be working well but hasn't enough power, and the one in Brussels that the Westminster one put in charge of them, and that they might let have some power over them.

It's the one in the middle, th Westminster one, that they feel may have let them down and is going under the microscope.

Each of the three parliaments may be loaned sovereignty by the Scottish people but one of them may soon face having it taken back.

Each parliament is there to serve the people in Scotland well, or, failing that, to be replaced. What is so strange about that, that you cannot understand it?

which parliament do you choose to live under?

I will understand that.

zagubov

CLAPTON wrote: »

which parliament do you choose to live under?

I will understand that.

I live under a devolved Assembly, whose creation I voted for in a referendum, a Westminster government which has an undemocratic unrepresentative landlord to lady ratio and needs radical reform, and the Brussels parliament, so everyone keeps telling me.

CLAPTON

zagubov wrote: »

I live under a devolved Assembly, whose creation I voted for in a referendum, a Westminster government which has an undemocratic unrepresentative landlord to lady ratio and needs radical reform, and the Brussels parliament, so everyone keeps telling me.

I note you don't refer to the Scottish government as the 'Edinburgh' government.


and I note you don't live under, nor plan to live under, the Edinburgh government but that you just love the 'democratic' European Government that requires no reform what so ever.

I'm surprised that you don't also live under a local government but that's just me.