Bongo_clive wrote:And if we're being pedantic, England is full of Scandinavians and Norsemen, the last groups that successfully invaded the British Isles, and the only true British can be found in Wales and Cornwall. This much is true (and why I chortle when the BNP start blathering on).

Because you feel you're racially pure and superior to them? Your posts are heaps of fun, where do I sign up to your crazy newsletter?

AustenT wrote:

This picture has been reversed and someone has gone to some lengths to disguise the fact. Currently the flag above is showing distress.

Now that IS funny.

@bongo_clive

We all know that the Anglo-Saxons where not originally from Britain, whats your point? The UK has always assimilated cultures, thats how we work. Hell, thats how the world works. Not on a basis of xenophobia and centuries old boundries, but on the basis that culture is a living breathing entity that evolves.

And Hong Kong, Singapore and the Caribbean did pretty well out of colonialism, other places less so, but the point is that colonialism itself is not inherently evil. BTW should I remind you of Wales' attempt at colonialism in Patagonia?

Thatcher closed the mines because we had no energy security, factories across the country could only open 3 days a week because of the actions of the Unions, this was destroying the entire economy. The Unions had only themselves to blame for the closures. So her choosing between the few, who were causing the problem in the first place, and everyone else who didn't have electricity for most of the week, she did govern for the people(please stop making me defend the milksnatcher, it hurts my liberal sensibilities).

George Spiggott wrote:

Bongo_clive wrote:And if we're being pedantic, England is full of Scandinavians and Norsemen, the last groups that successfully invaded the British Isles, and the only true British can be found in Wales and Cornwall. This much is true (and why I chortle when the BNP start blathering on).

Because you feel you're racially pure and superior to them? Your posts are heaps of fun, where do I sign up to your crazy newsletter?

AustenT wrote:

This picture has been reversed and someone has gone to some lengths to disguise the fact. Currently the flag above is showing distress.

Now that IS funny.

Sounds made up.

AustonT wrote:Sounds made up.

How else do you account for Thatcher's 'quiff' being on the wrong side of her head and the reversed flag?

George Spiggott wrote:

AustonT wrote:Sounds made up.

How else do you account for Thatcher's 'quiff' being on the wrong side of her head and the reversed flag?

The fact that you could even spot that amazes me...I always though it was symmetrical.

Although apparently if you rid yourself of Northern Ireland it CAN be symmetrical...

AustonT wrote:The fact that you could even spot that amazes me...I always though it was symmetrical.

I'm sure you would instantly spot a similar error with your own flag (not it being reversed, that's bloody obvious with the US flag) and I would be oblivious.

No Tory party conference worth it's name would mount the Union Flag the wrong way. Unlike this numpty.





Apart from anything else the Union Flag is part of his party's logo.

filbert wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:

filbert wrote:If you are seriously a history teacher then I despair for your students...

I believe that he is an archaeologist rather than a teacher. However I would tend to agree with you...

Remedial reading comprehension for me then. Still, the point stands - claiming to have a good grasp of history and then writing the drivel that followed that does not compute.

Please point out where I'm wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:

Bongo_clive wrote:

Secondly, my grasp of history is quite sound, as I am an archaeologist.

One does not equal the other, as the rest of your post is ample evidence.

It's sad that just because some languages die out, you seem to think it's OK, especially when the English did everything they could do stamp it out. My teachers gre up in a world where if they spoke Welsh in school, they were caned (and there is no doubt their intolerance of this practice and the mentality behind has rubbed off on me)

In this alternative universe where "your teachers" grew up did they not have BBC Cymru or S4C and in this alternative universe had they not been broadcasting at least some Welsh content on BBC Radio since the 1930's? Perhaps they were caned for being obnoxious little gaks rather than speaking Welsh, as all the obnoxious little gaks that thought they could pull a fast one in Dutch on our teacher had red asses just like baboons which it seems was unrelated to the language.

WHILE we're being pedantic, England is full of Scandinavians and Norsemen, the last groups that successfully invaded the British Isles, and the only true British can be found in Wales and Cornwall.

Yes while you are being pedantic a young lady would like to tell you something about being British.


"What an amazing thing is our United Kingdom. Here we have the Welsh, the English, the Scots and the people of Ulster, each proud of their origin and concerned for their posterity; each regarding themselves, in some ways, as a separate cultural entity, but all combining to form a British nation with a British patriotism."

You should consider being British in addition to coming up with alternative history.

You know she's English right? That proves my point.

And as for Welsh language TV or Radio, that all began in the 70's and 80's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S4C "At the beginning of the 1970s Cymdeithas began to campaign for a Welsh-language radio and television service. Radio Cymru was established in 1977, but in 1979 the Conservative government announced in that it would not keep its election promise of the establishment of a separate Welsh language television channel. Some protesters refused to buy television licences and others climbed up television masts and invaded television studios.[8] S4C was finally launched in 1982." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Welsh_Language_Society )

So unless you think I'm 12 years old, you might be wrong. This all happened in the 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's

And again please prove where my history is wrong


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dæl wrote:@bongo_clive

We all know that the Anglo-Saxons where not originally from Britain, whats your point? The UK has always assimilated cultures, thats how we work. Hell, thats how the world works. Not on a basis of xenophobia and centuries old boundries, but on the basis that culture is a living breathing entity that evolves.

And Hong Kong, Singapore and the Caribbean did pretty well out of colonialism, other places less so, but the point is that colonialism itself is not inherently evil. BTW should I remind you of Wales' attempt at colonialism in Patagonia?

Thatcher closed the mines because we had no energy security, factories across the country could only open 3 days a week because of the actions of the Unions, this was destroying the entire economy. The Unions had only themselves to blame for the closures. So her choosing between the few, who were causing the problem in the first place, and everyone else who didn't have electricity for most of the week, she did govern for the people(please stop making me defend the milksnatcher, it hurts my liberal sensibilities).

Don't want to break it to you Dael, but you might be a Tory in disguise.

And there you go with your Colonial/Imperialist attitude. All those people that the English ruled tyrannically/undemocratically should be grateful for the fact. Look at what your writing!!

People accuse you of being 12 years old because you write posts that are difficult to comprehend, and I dont for a second believe you are a teacher/archaeologist.

Or President of the Anne Robinson fan club either.

Anne Robinson..

I'm still stunned you actually typed it!

Bongo_clive wrote:
But once William had sorted out England, he turned his attention to Wales, and from that day forward England has taken, taken taken, and never charitably given anything in return. The same happened in India, Ghana, Canada etc. Seriously, without getting all worked up, tell me what England has given any of those countries? The standard answer in 'Civilization', but did anyone ever ask for that? Never. Those indigenous people never asked to work for England, learn its religion and culture, or fight in its wars.

It's called colonialism or Imperialism, and the crucial element is that the people who are doing the colonising, think they're doing a good thing. (See USA foreign policy since 1941)

I am not bitter or downhearted, as this is the reaction the English always present in this argument, as I'm sure they do when presented with arguments about the colonisation of Ghana, India, Canada, Australia, Ireland and Scotland. I'm sorry I got flippant, I should not have done that, but the blinkered view of the English has become tiresome

PS Thatcher forgot the one principle that all politicians should have tattooed to their forehead. "Government for the people". She closed those mines because they weren't making much money, but that shouldn't matter, they were providing money for whole communities, keeping people off the dole, giving them dignity and pride. She took all that way to make more money for someone. Sickening

What did the Romans ever do for us?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

But seriously, what's wrong with spreading technology and better government? It's odd that "Divide and Conquer" is often cited as a negative point of the British in India, considering that "India" wasn't united before the British came, unless you count things like the Maratha Empire. Not that I'd support a re-invasion of India even if Britain had the military power to do it, as we live in a different era now. But given the values of the 17th/18th century era, better to pick the ones with the technology and thus progression.

Since when was Scotland colonised by the English? And what are these "arguments presented" about Canada and Australia?

And again, what's with all the hate? I'm part Welsh and I see myself as British while respecting my Welsh/English roots; I don't feel the need to chose one over the other like somekind of identity crisis. It's almost as if you want the English to be bad like somekind of stereotyping Hollywood caster.

As for Thatcher, she isn't exactly a saint in England y'know. Infact the only place in the world where she's loved outside of Conservative HQ is the Falklands, representing about the only thing she did right in her time in office.

Bongo_clive wrote:
And there you go with your Colonial/Imperialist attitude. All those people that the English ruled tyrannically/undemocratically should be grateful for the fact. Look at what your writing!!

You mean British? Unless you mean pre-union Norman England....

Oh right...sorry, I forgot, it helps to say "English" rather than "British" as it's not so fashionable to remember Wales and Scotland playing the colonist game...

SDFarsight wrote:

Bongo_clive wrote:
But once William had sorted out England, he turned his attention to Wales, and from that day forward England has taken, taken taken, and never charitably given anything in return. The same happened in India, Ghana, Canada etc. Seriously, without getting all worked up, tell me what England has given any of those countries? The standard answer in 'Civilization', but did anyone ever ask for that? Never. Those indigenous people never asked to work for England, learn its religion and culture, or fight in its wars.

It's called colonialism or Imperialism, and the crucial element is that the people who are doing the colonising, think they're doing a good thing. (See USA foreign policy since 1941)

I am not bitter or downhearted, as this is the reaction the English always present in this argument, as I'm sure they do when presented with arguments about the colonisation of Ghana, India, Canada, Australia, Ireland and Scotland. I'm sorry I got flippant, I should not have done that, but the blinkered view of the English has become tiresome

PS Thatcher forgot the one principle that all politicians should have tattooed to their forehead. "Government for the people". She closed those mines because they weren't making much money, but that shouldn't matter, they were providing money for whole communities, keeping people off the dole, giving them dignity and pride. She took all that way to make more money for someone. Sickening

What did the Romans ever do for us?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

But seriously, what's wrong with spreading technology and better government? It's odd that "Divide and Conqour" is often cited as a negative point of the British in India, considering that "India" wasn't united before the British came, unless you count things like the Maratha Empire. Not that I'd support a re-invasion of India even if Britain had the military power to do it, as we live in a different era now.

Since when was Scotland colonised by the English?

As for Thatcher, she isn't exactly a saint in England y'know. Infact the only place in the world where she's loved outside of Conservative HQ is the Falklands, representing about the only thing she did right in her time in office.

I went to Sierra Leone during Op Pallister. Ask the people there if they thought they were better or worse off when the British were in charge and their life expectancy was 5 times what it is now.

mattyrm wrote:I went to Sierra Leone during Op Pallister. Ask the people there if they thought they were better or worse off when the British were in charge and their life expectancy was 5 times what it is now.

Ah, but don't you see? They may have the life expectancy of a pet hamster, but they're free of tyranny. Free to live their short, awful lives however they, or their new tyrants, see fit. Brings a tear to one's eye, it does.

htj wrote:

mattyrm wrote:I went to Sierra Leone during Op Pallister. Ask the people there if they thought they were better or worse off when the British were in charge and their life expectancy was 5 times what it is now.

Ah, but don't you see? They may have the life expectancy of a pet hamster, but they're free of tyranny. Free to live their short, awful lives however they, or their new tyrants, see fit. Brings a tear to one's eye, it does.

Not to mention they are now no longer forced to drink tea 24 hours a day and wear formal dress at all times. Nope, now they are free to drink dirty water polluted with the bodies of the people from the next town over and wear all the rags they can loot from the bodies that drift downstream... you know, engage in their own culture

Love of Christ. This is so sad it's almost funny, but I do have other things to do with my life than try to educate you cretins. You don't know your history, and if you're using clips of "What the Romans Did" to try to keep up, it's embarrassing (Hint: You're about 800 years too early) And honestly, if you don't know why the Scots consider themselves colonised, you've a lot of reading to do.

But seriously, do you not see the irony of your words? It's OK to invade other countries because YOU have decided what YOU think is best for everyone? Who gave the English that mandate? The English decided that they knew best, so they would use their military might to shape the world to their vision. That's exactly what the Nazi's did!! Don't you realise the Americans only joined the war with guarantees that once they'd finished toppling the German Empire, the British would dismantle theirs?

Who said India had to be united? Who said that? They certainly didn't. They were doing quite nicely before the English stormed through there spreading war and disease, exploiting a country which is only now recovering.

The Inuit were more than happy before the English stormed through Canada "spreading technology and better government" or as most people call it, destroying the Inuit's habitat, killing their natural prey, and getting them hooked on booze, a problem the Canadian government is still trying to rectify today.



I'm done with this thread, I work hard enough without having to do more. But before you all start hammering the key board while frothing at the mouth, a few indisputable facts, just so we're all singing from the same hymn sheet, and then you answer the questions:

The British may have taken the lead in abolishing the slave trade, they are the ones who drove it, and they supported the South in the American Civil War
The independence and partition of India cost hundreds of thousands of lives
The only democracy in the British Empire could be found in white dominated colonies, and was expressly forbidden for all non-whites. This includes Africa, Australia, Canada and India

And now:

Why is Gandhi so famous? What did he work tirelessly for?
Why did all the countries of the Empire actively seek to gain independence?
Why did the Australians seriously consider removing the Queen as their head of state?
Why do the Australian Aborigines have a tent city demanding back the rights to the land the British stole from them?
Why did the Irish fight tooth and nail to get rid of the British? What is Bloody Sunday?
Why did Wales vote for devolution?
Why did Scotland vote for devolution?

I am not saying I hate the English, it is clearly ridiculous to hold you accountable for the crimes of the past, but what bothers me is this blinkered view that the British Empire was some kind of holy institution that never did wrong and everyone, the Indians, the Aborigines, the Africans, the Arabs and the North Americans should be HAPPY that the British decided to stomp around their countries.

Let me state this very carefully. THEY. ARE. NOT. HAPPY. THAT. THIS. HAPPENED.

If you've ever sat through Braveheart, and wondered why this stirs the soul of the Scottish, you now have your answer.

And finally, if Anne Robinson had said the same thing about black people, or gay people or disabled people, she would never work for the BBC again, but as it's the Welsh, then it's all fair game. I don't care about Anne Robinson, or her views, but it bothers me that she's allowed to do that.

Bongo_clive wrote:The British may have taken the lead in abolishing the slave trade, they are the ones who drove it, and they supported the South in the American Civil War.

British slave trading was actually one of the smaller European trades. The majority was Portugese. Anti-slave trade movements existed in Britain well before the abolitionist movement was passed. The American civil war was not all about slavery, and Britain did not support the South because they wanted to protect their right to own slaves.

So sad it's almost funny? You're bang on there. No-one thinks that the British Empire was some holy institution, no-one thinks that everyone should still be united under British rule, but there are many ex-colonies that suffered badly from poorly implemented decolonisation. Rash, hateful, knee-jerk anti-Imperialism is just as damaging to a country as Imperialism, sometimes moreso. There is an assumption that the British Empire caused nothing but misery, death, and subjugation, but that's a childishly simple way of looking at an issue that is far more complex in reality.

The English decided that they knew best, so they would use their military might to shape the world to their vision. That's exactly what the Nazi's did!!

I mean, seriously. Come on.

Bongo_clive wrote:this blinkered view that the British Empire was some kind of holy institution that never did wrong

Ive never met a single citizen of the world who thinks that is the case, British or otherwise. Its always a case of some good, some good. Considering Gordon Brown apologised for the fething slave trade! (ridiculous I know) Its utterly ridiculous to suggest that anyone thinks the British Empire was "A holy institution that never did wrong" and you know it. Even the most staunch supporter of colonisation will happily admit that some of the things carried out were morally reprehensible, you fething know it for a fact.

So in a nutshell your fully making gak up. You have invented a position which "The English" don't actually hold.

And as I said, I've got Welsh ancestors, I'm sure they would all think you were as much of an idiot as everyone else in this thread does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

htj wrote:

The English decided that they knew best, so they would use their military might to shape the world to their vision. That's exactly what the Nazi's did!!

I mean, seriously. Come on.

Indeed, I think the guy must be winding us up!

He's probably from Sussex.

Bongo_clive wrote:If you've ever sat through Braveheart, and wondered why this stirs the soul of the Scottish, you now have your answer.

Possibly because, like the majority of what you said, it is horrifically historically inaccurate and designed to provoke an emotional response while portraying itself as some kind of historic authority?

And anyway, one man stole that film.

MrDwhitey wrote:And anyway, one man stole that film.

"...But we'll shoot our own men!" "That's why we have reserves!"

I can't count the number of times I've quoted those lines while playing a wargame. Those lines single handedly save the film.

Bongo_clive wrote:If you've ever sat through Braveheart, and wondered why this stirs the soul of the Scottish, you now have your answer.

Bongo, your crazy newsletter, where do I sign?

If you've ever sat through Braveheart, and wondered why this stirs the soul of the Scottish, you now have your answer.

Its not the movie that stirs the soul (because elements of it were inaccurate) but rather that it brings to mind the Highland Clearances and the systematic efforts made to destroy the Scottish culture (including the banning of the Kilt for a considerable length of time). The systematic efforts by both the English and the Scottish Aristocrats to attack and subjugate the Scottish peoples.

Mr Hyena wrote:The systematic efforts by... the Scottish Aristocrats to attack and subjugate the Scottish peoples.

Surely that can't be right! :O

I thought it was the English who were the only people who apparently were going around doing this sort of thing!

Well clearly those aristocrats were not true Scotsmen.

Mr Hyena wrote:

If you've ever sat through Braveheart, and wondered why this stirs the soul of the Scottish, you now have your answer.

Its not the movie that stirs the soul (because elements of it were inaccurate) but rather that it brings to mind the Highland Clearances and the systematic efforts made to destroy the Scottish culture (including the banning of the Kilt for a considerable length of time). The systematic efforts by both the English and the Scottish Aristocrats to attack and subjugate the Scottish peoples.

The kilt banning was a response to the perceived threat of uprising from Scottish highlanders after the Jacobite rebellion, no? So surely that's more in response to pro-James II attacks on the then current monarchy. I suppose you could say it was an attempt to subjugate the culture of the highlanders which, in part, led to the Jacobite uprising. But it would be inaccurate to imply that it was part of some kind of anti-Scottish conspiracy. It was more a panicked reaction to a perceived threat from dissenters in Scotland. Not an equivalent example, but it's the same as the banning of the swastika in Germany. It's the suppression of something you see as a threat to your constitution, not a targetted hatred of a culture.

Actually that example doesn't work at all, but hopefully you can see what I mean.

MrDwhitey wrote:Well clearly those aristocrats were not true Scotsmen.

A chuckle and a shake of the head to you my good sir

Mr Hyena wrote:

If you've ever sat through Braveheart, and wondered why this stirs the soul of the Scottish, you now have your answer.

Its not the movie that stirs the soul (because elements of it were inaccurate) but rather that it brings to mind the Highland Clearances and the systematic efforts made to destroy the Scottish culture (including the banning of the Kilt for a considerable length of time). The systematic efforts by both the English and the Scottish Aristocrats to attack and subjugate the Scottish peoples.

William Wallace was a lowlander and a knight. Who's side do you think a contemporary Wallace would have been on? The Jacobites brought it on themselves by invading England.

Still this has nothing to do with the union that exists today.

Lol Braveheart.

Stewart Lee wrote:Braveheart is the gakkest fim ever made, it was, it was directed by the reactionary Catholic bigot Mel Gibson and it's full of basic, fundamental historical errors which insult your race. Here's just three off the top of my head. Firstly, William Wallace, Braveheart, your national hero, he wasn't some noble savage living in a mud hut. He was a privileged, educated Nobleman, right? Secondly, its not mentioned in the film, but there's some evidence to suggest that he actually fought as a mercenary for the English as a teenager. Thirdly, you know that French princess he's supposed to have sex with? The implication is that he gets her pregnant and she marries Edward II of England so its his kid. Now she was a real historical figure, that French princess. But at the time of the death of William Wallace, Braveheart, your national hero, she was only 4 years old. Now, Glasgow, Im not saying that William Wallace, Braveheart, your national hero, didn't have sex with her. You know, he probably did. If I look at my own background there's a lot of sexual opportunism involved. Im not saying he didn't have sex with her but if he did, and he definitely did, it would have been a far less romantic scene than the one enacted by Mel Gibson in the film Braveheart. It may have happened in a tent but it would still have been not a romantic scene. Because that would have made William Wallace, Braveheart, your national hero, a paedophile.

As for colonialism, noone argued that it was a force of absolute good, simply that it wasn't a force of absolute evil, you go to Hong Kong and tell me they would have been better off without being a colony, or Singapore. They wouldn't be half as developed as they are today. Also the British, well the English as it was Bristol, took the lead in abolishing the Slave Trade.

Wales has it quite nicely at the moment, be careful what you wish for because your lives would be rather different under independence, after all you wouldn't have the taxes of the English paying for your Uni fees, and free prescriptions, and free care for the elderly.

Surveys regarding support for independence have yielded different results, though they often find that between 10 and 15% of Welsh desire independence from the United Kingdom.[10] A 2001 survey for the Institute of Welsh Affairs found that 11% of people polled favoured independence.[11] A 2007 survey by the Institute of Welsh Politics at the University of Wales found that 12% of those questioned supported independence, down slightly from 14% in 1997.[12] A poll taken by BBC Wales Newsnight in 2007 found that 20% of Welsh questioned favoured independence.[10] A 2006 poll taken by Wales on Sunday found the number to be as high as 52%, although the poll mostly interviewed people in North Wales where support for independence is strongest.[13]

Easy solution, cut off North Wales. We don't like it anyway.

Then there's:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/03/01/welsh-independence-supported-by-only-7-of-residents_n_1312660.html

MrDwhitey wrote:

Surveys regarding support for independence have yielded different results, though they often find that between 10 and 15% of Welsh desire independence from the United Kingdom.[10] A 2001 survey for the Institute of Welsh Affairs found that 11% of people polled favoured independence.[11] A 2007 survey by the Institute of Welsh Politics at the University of Wales found that 12% of those questioned supported independence, down slightly from 14% in 1997.[12] A poll taken by BBC Wales Newsnight in 2007 found that 20% of Welsh questioned favoured independence.[10] A 2006 poll taken by Wales on Sunday found the number to be as high as 52%, although the poll mostly interviewed people in North Wales where support for independence is strongest.[13]

Easy solution, cut off North Wales. We don't like it anyway.

Then there's:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/03/01/welsh-independence-supported-by-only-7-of-residents_n_1312660.html

That link is misleading, the % sign is missing so it looks like it says "Welsh independence supported by only 7 of residents".

Which amuses me even further.

Well, there are only 8 Welsh people in Wales after all being killed off in the great cull that happens every year... or Jones' Run as it is sometimes known by the English who take part...

Bongo_clive wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Bongo_clive wrote:

Secondly, my grasp of history is quite sound, as I am an archaeologist.

One does not equal the other, as the rest of your post is ample evidence.

It's sad that just because some languages die out, you seem to think it's OK, especially when the English did everything they could do stamp it out. My teachers gre up in a world where if they spoke Welsh in school, they were caned (and there is no doubt their intolerance of this practice and the mentality behind has rubbed off on me)

In this alternative universe where "your teachers" grew up did they not have BBC Cymru or S4C and in this alternative universe had they not been broadcasting at least some Welsh content on BBC Radio since the 1930's? Perhaps they were caned for being obnoxious little gaks rather than speaking Welsh, as all the obnoxious little gaks that thought they could pull a fast one in Dutch on our teacher had red asses just like baboons which it seems was unrelated to the language.

WHILE we're being pedantic, England is full of Scandinavians and Norsemen, the last groups that successfully invaded the British Isles, and the only true British can be found in Wales and Cornwall.

Yes while you are being pedantic a young lady would like to tell you something about being British.


"What an amazing thing is our United Kingdom. Here we have the Welsh, the English, the Scots and the people of Ulster, each proud of their origin and concerned for their posterity; each regarding themselves, in some ways, as a separate cultural entity, but all combining to form a British nation with a British patriotism."

You should consider being British in addition to coming up with alternative history.

You know she's English right? That proves my point.

How exactly does British unity prove your point of decisiveness. Is it opposite day in Somalia?

And as for Welsh language TV or Radio, that all began in the 70's and 80's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S4C "At the beginning of the 1970s Cymdeithas began to campaign for a Welsh-language radio and television service. Radio Cymru was established in 1977, but in 1979 the Conservative government announced in that it would not keep its election promise of the establishment of a separate Welsh language television channel. Some protesters refused to buy television licences and others climbed up television masts and invaded television studios.[8] S4C was finally launched in 1982." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Welsh_Language_Society )

So unless you think I'm 12 years old, you might be wrong. This all happened in the 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's

And again please prove where my history is wrong

During World War II, the regional services all ceased and broadcast the Home Service from London, although some Welsh content was included.

That would be the 40's

Established in 1964, BBC Cymru Wales produce(s) a range of programmes for television, radio and online services in both English and Welsh.

That's the 60's

BBC Cymru's Welsh-language radio station, broadcasting throughout Wales from studios in Cardiff, Bangor, and Aberystwyth on FM since 1977.

That would be the 70's
I'm sorry you didn't get a Welsh only government funded television station to service solely 1.5% of the UK population that actually speaks Welsh. What a fething tragedy. Governments that are "stamping out" a language don't normally take the time to broadcast in that language at all. In fact since the BBC was founded they have broadcast Welsh language programming. In case you are wondering the BBC was founded in 1927.
You act like a 12 year old stamping your feet about imagined wrongs and agitating against national unity.

Don't waste your energy Auston.. the blokes clearly off his tits.

None-the-less, well said and well researched AustonT.

MrDwhitey wrote:

Surveys regarding support for independence have yielded different results, though they often find that between 10 and 15% of Welsh desire independence from the United Kingdom.[10] A 2001 survey for the Institute of Welsh Affairs found that 11% of people polled favoured independence.[11] A 2007 survey by the Institute of Welsh Politics at the University of Wales found that 12% of those questioned supported independence, down slightly from 14% in 1997.[12] A poll taken by BBC Wales Newsnight in 2007 found that 20% of Welsh questioned favoured independence.[10] A 2006 poll taken by Wales on Sunday found the number to be as high as 52%, although the poll mostly interviewed people in North Wales where support for independence is strongest.[13]

Easy solution, cut off North Wales. We don't like it anyway.

Then there's:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/03/01/welsh-independence-supported-by-only-7-of-residents_n_1312660.html

7% is interesting, I'd bet that there's a higher percentage of English who would want Welsh independence than Welsh that do. I'd just rather we had free prescriptions and universities nationwide, rather than breaking up the Union.

Just think of the job stimulus if Wales and Scotland devolved - Hundreds of jobs for rebuilding all the castles along the Welsh and Scottish border to keep out the starving, unemployed and homeless Scots and Welsh

I'd just rather we had free prescriptions and universities nationwide, rather than breaking up the Union.

Whats the incentive to stay in the union then? Seems undeserved to take that away.

SilverMK2 wrote:Just think of the job stimulus if Wales and Scotland devolved - Hundreds of jobs for rebuilding all the castles along the Welsh and Scottish border to keep out the starving, unemployed and homeless Scots and Welsh

And the alterations making Hadrian's Wall 30ft high.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Hyena wrote:

I'd just rather we had free prescriptions and universities nationwide, rather than breaking up the Union.

Whats the incentive to stay in the union then? Seems undeserved to take that away.

How is giving England what Wales and Scotland have taking anything away from anyone?

dæl wrote: How is giving England what Wales and Scotland have taking anything away from anyone?

Well, someone has to pay for it... wait a second...

Well, someone has to pay for it... wait a second...

Yeap. Exactly.

SilverMK2 wrote:

dæl wrote: How is giving England what Wales and Scotland have taking anything away from anyone?

Well, someone has to pay for it... wait a second...

And currently we are paying for benefits we don't get. Which is unfair.

dæl wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:

dæl wrote: How is giving England what Wales and Scotland have taking anything away from anyone?

Well, someone has to pay for it... wait a second...

And currently we are paying for benefits we don't get. Which is unfair.

Its entirely possible to give yourself the benefits. But it will make people question the union further because it will reduce what Wales and Scotland receives unless you pay for it yourselves.

Mr Hyena wrote:But it will make people question the union further because it will reduce what Wales and Scotland receives unless you pay for it yourselves.

I'm sorry but, what!? People had free universities for years and noone questioned the union. And how can you reduce something that's free, it's either free or it's not.

dæl wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:But it will make people question the union further because it will reduce what Wales and Scotland receives unless you pay for it yourselves.

I'm sorry but, what!? People had free universities for years and noone questioned the union. And how can you reduce something that's free, it's either free or it's not.

Someone has to pay for it. If you add Englands universities on top of Wales and Scotland...whos going to front up the cash? Is it going to come out of the funds set aside for Wales and Scotland?

Apparently its hard enough to get just what we have funded.

Mr Hyena wrote:

dæl wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:But it will make people question the union further because it will reduce what Wales and Scotland receives unless you pay for it yourselves.

I'm sorry but, what!? People had free universities for years and noone questioned the union. And how can you reduce something that's free, it's either free or it's not.

Someone has to pay for it. If you add Englands universities on top of Wales and Scotland...whos going to front up the cash?

The same person who is paying for Wales and Scotland, the taxpayer. Who is predominantly English, but gets less benefits than the Welsh and Scottish.

The same person who is paying for Wales and Scotland, the taxpayer. Who is predominantly English, but gets less benefits than the Welsh and Scottish.

I don't think that'll be accepted by even the English in a time of austerity.

Mr Hyena wrote:

The same person who is paying for Wales and Scotland, the taxpayer. Who is predominantly English, but gets less benefits than the Welsh and Scottish.

I don't think that'll be accepted by even the English in a time of austerity.

But it is, because that is what is happening.

I mean putting additional taxes...on top of that.

Mr Hyena wrote:I mean putting additional taxes...on top of that.

Restructuring the budget does not mean higher taxes. It means different spending.


A good analogy of the current situation is that of the benefit scrounger with the massive telly and the numerous holidays while the working family down the street can't have such things, these countries are living far more comfortably while the country that is actually paying for their comfort is less so.

I don't think people should get free prescriptions me. We should leave sick people to die on windswept crags and only integrate them back into society if they recover naturally.

mattyrm wrote:I don't think people should get free prescriptions me. We should leave sick people to die on windswept crags and only integrate them back into society if they recover naturally.

So you don't think people should get any prescriptions then? What about Universities?

dæl wrote:

mattyrm wrote:I don't think people should get free prescriptions me. We should leave sick people to die on windswept crags and only integrate them back into society if they recover naturally.

So you don't think people should get any prescriptions then? What about Universities?

Well, I was obviously taking the piss, but....

mattyrm wrote:

dæl wrote:

mattyrm wrote:I don't think people should get free prescriptions me. We should leave sick people to die on windswept crags and only integrate them back into society if they recover naturally.

So you don't think people should get any prescriptions then? What about Universities?

Well, I was obviously taking the piss, but....

I didn't seriously think you planned on telling cancer sufferers to walk it off.

I'm happy with the NHS about 90%, I just don't think most mental health stuff should be covered. You know, cos its too hard to definitively prove that kinda thing.

Like if you have TB or AIDS or Cancer or something, you just have it. But if you have "bad dreams cos my tits are too small" you can get a boob job? Or a sex change? Or liposuction? People say "Oh i just feel like.. life isn't worth living.. i should just.. sniff.. kill myself ... so give me a fanny/grow my tits/send me to Barbados"

I reckon we should do 90% of the stuff we do, but if you want something related to mental well being you need to commit to 60 days in an aslyum! Where treatment by professionals could possibly sort your issues out. That way, we can pay to treat people that do it, and we know they are for real, because they went through the proper treatment, and also we give a real chance to people that could be assisted by psychiatry, but we will also cut out most of the frivolous stuff, cos most people wouldn't be willing to spend a large amount of time in a nuthouse for a claim that wasn't 100% serious.

Smart eh?! I should be in charge!

I must add as a disclaimer that I have drank 12 pints and though it makes perfect sense at the moment, I will proof read this post tomorrow and retain the right to delete everything in ten hours time if it makes no sense at all.

Mr Hyena wrote:

I'd just rather we had free prescriptions and universities nationwide, rather than breaking up the Union.

Whats the incentive to stay in the union then? Seems undeserved to take that away.

I'm not going to address the justice of the historical situation, because I think we have to move on from where we are now, and the truth is that England does not currently attempt to suppress or enslave the other nations. If anything they are doing quite well, with their own parliaments, subsidised language services, central government transfers (the Barnet formula) and so on.

Staying in the Union is the current default state, as no mechanisms yet exist even for taking a decision to break it up. The question is what would the benefits be for breaking up.

I think breaking up would be hugely difficult and expensive, and none of the nations -- England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland -- would be likely to end up more successful afterwards, though possibly England would benefit the most, for various reasons, such as the cessation of the subsidies currently paid to the other regions, and the return of government jobs to the centre (e.g. the DVLA, currently based in Swansea.)

As an instance of the difficulties, would the EU be likely to accept the new nations as members, and how much subsidy would it be able to afford to pay in the current economic crisis? (It was EU subsidies that turned Eire into the Celtic Tiger.)

Speaking from England, I know my perspective is different, so perhaps I am wrong about all this.

Bongo_clive wrote:And honestly, if you don't know why the Scots consider themselves colonised, you've a lot of reading to do.

Are you kidding? Even Alex Salmond himself said that "Scotland is not oppressed and we have no need to be liberated"

BTW: Alex Salmond is the head of the Scottish National Party and First Minister of the Scottish parliament. But I guess you already knew that as you're such an authority on Scotland..

But seriously, do you not see the irony of your words? It's OK to invade other countries because YOU have decided what YOU think is best for everyone? Who gave the English that mandate? The English decided that they knew best, so they would use their military might to shape the world to their vision. Don't you realise the Americans only joined the war with guarantees that once they'd finished toppling the German Empire, the British would dismantle theirs?

Who said India had to be united? Who said that? They certainly didn't. They were doing quite nicely before the English stormed through there spreading war and disease, exploiting a country which is only now recovering.

Did you read anything I said earlier about "standards of the era"? Ah yes, apparently you didn't read it as you still seem to think that it's the English Empire rather than the British Empire.

That's exactly what the Nazi's did!!

Are you seriously going to 'Godwin Law' this thread already? I thought you were a smart archaeologist who's far too good to "educate cretins."

and then you answer the questions:

Why is Gandhi so famous? What did he work tirelessly for?
Why did all the countries of the Empire actively seek to gain independence?
Why did the Australians seriously consider removing the Queen as their head of state?
Why do the Australian Aborigines have a tent city demanding back the rights to the land the British stole from them?
Why did the Irish fight tooth and nail to get rid of the British? What is Bloody Sunday?
Why did Wales vote for devolution?
Why did Scotland vote for devolution?

1. Ghandi wanted independence. I don't think anyone is pretending otherwise.
2.False. not all of them seeked to gain independence and even some of the ones who did still have the Queen as their Head of Sate.
3. And why did they not?
4. Because some people think that racism is solved by more racism.
5. False. Some Irish did, but not all. Even some (and IIRC a majority) of the Catholics don't want to join the Republic. As for Bloody Sunday- yes it happend, but does that make the IRA's crimes OK? Especially considering that you don't see the IRA making inquiries.....

SDFarsight wrote:

Why did the Australians seriously consider removing the Queen as their head of state?

3. And why did they not?

Because when it was put to a referendum, instead of just asking whether we should become a republic, the Government deliberately worded the question to ask if we should replace the Queen with a President elected by Parliament (rather than by the people)... which a large percentage of the Republican movement didn't want, and so they voted against it in the hope that a later referendum would offer a different model.