Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Seaward wrote:

 Doctadeth wrote:
There's a party in george square in Glasgow on because Maggie T passed on.

(scots)

Stay classy, Glasgow.

It doesn't matter what your politics are. Anyone who celebrates a 87 year old woman dying of a stroke following suffering from dementia, Is a contemptable human being.
It says nothing about thatcher, but says a lot more about them.

 Seaward wrote:

 Doctadeth wrote:
There's a party in george square in Glasgow on because Maggie T passed on.

(scots)

Stay classy, Glasgow.

=/ Aww I've got painting to do today.

And its not just Glasgow, there's tons of "celebrations" occurring across the country right now given that people have had the time to organise themselves. She may have been an old woman and all that, but bear in mind that she is viewed as being well... evil by a large number of British people. Her policy was that she only needed to keep 1/3rd of the British people happy to stay in government. The other 2/3rds don't have such a high opinion of her.

She did her best to make sure my country wasn't given the right to rule or represent itself, it doesn't matter what her good points were, that's a blow against the Scottish national identity.

 Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
On a related note, an ex-colleague said his father's proud boast was that he was the only man in the world the SAS were afraid of.

He was a major in the Royal Army Dental Corps and he did their teeth.

I firmly believe British dentistry could be weaponized.

Believe? What do you think they were shooting? Bullets. No, the SAS is so lethal because it shoots...Teeth!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eggs wrote:
I'm a scot, but I'm disappointed thatcher has died. I was hoping she'd live long enough to see Scotland removed from the clutches of her party forever next year.

Never! While everyone was busy complaining about Neville Chamberlain, he secretly commissioned a team of crack scientists with a mission. In 1957 they succeeded.

Deep in the bowels of White Chapel is a locked room. In that room is a creature. That creature has been bred for one purpose. That creature is.. FrankenEdward Longshanks. MUAHAHAH!



Hey its the best I can do without coffee in the morning.


EDIT: Its interesting how the UK media hate her. I saw a statiustic on TV. When she started unemployment was on the order of 13%. When she left it was 5% (IIRC). That doesn't sound like EVILLZ to me.

 Wyrmalla wrote:

=/ Aww I've got painting to do today.

And its not just Glasgow, there's tons of "celebrations" occurring across the country right now given that people have had the time to organise themselves. She may have been an old woman and all that, but bear in mind that she is viewed as being well... evil by a large number of British people. Her policy was that she only needed to keep 1/3rd of the British people happy to stay in government. The other 2/3rds don't have such a high opinion of her.

She did her best to make sure my country wasn't given the right to rule or represent itself, it doesn't matter what her good points were, that's a blow against the Scottish national identity.

Now, all I know about Scotland I learned from Braveheart and the labels of whiskey bottles, but could she really have been old enough to have been around for the Acts of Union?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22070491

Unemployment had been rising throughout the 1970s as companies set about restructuring and modernising their businesses.

But it picked up speed after the Conservatives took power in 1979, rapidly rising to over three million in 1982.

Unemployment hit hardest in Northern Ireland, where one in five were out of work in the early 1980s, along with the industrial areas of northern England and Scotland.

An economic boom later in the decade helped to bring unemployment down, but it was a slow process.

She said that as long as she was in power Scotland would never have its own parliament. So she stripped the country of its resources and belittled its people without them having the means to fight back against her equivocally in government. Its a people's right to govern themselves and all that, or at least that's been one of the messages of the last century.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
She said that as long as she was in power Scotland would never have its own parliament. So she stripped the country of its resources and belittled its people without them having the means to fight back against her equivocally in government. Its a people's right to govern themselves and all that, or at least that's been one of the messages of the last century.

Hadn't there not been a Scottish parliament since the early 1700s? I thought it was combined when the UK was formed.

Sad news. I'm gonna miss her. One of the best politicians we've ever had.

Of course, Maggie being Maggie, she's probably going to barge her way out of the afterlife and emerge from the floor of the House of Commons in a cloud of flame, rocking an electric guitar with an underslung machine gun, wearing a trenchcoat, bellowing "I'm back, bitches!".

 Wyrmalla wrote:
She said that as long as she was in power Scotland would never have its own parliament. So she stripped the country of its resources and belittled its people without them having the means to fight back against her equivocally in government. Its a people's right to govern themselves and all that, or at least that's been one of the messages of the last century.

Not seeing the problem. Scotland is the size of my closet, and its damp, like all the time. Everyone has marbles in their mouths when they talk. How can you have a Parliament when everyone has marbles in their mouths and go "Kblar Blar Blar WALLLACE!!!! Blar burrrrrr" all the time and can't understand each other? Next you'll be telling me nonsense about how the workweek should only be 60 hours a week and women should have the vote. Nonsense!

OT but what is up with those accents? I get the "TV/royal" accent (which is really cool wit da wimminz), but those city accents in Snatch and Dr. Who. Wo dude WTH? OI! Its like everyone decided to never actually enunciate any word whatsoever. Thats why the Germans couldn't conquer the UK. It wasn't Lord Olivier and a bunch of guys in Spitfires, it was the fact that the Germans could never understand anyone and figure out where they hell they were at.

 Seaward wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
She said that as long as she was in power Scotland would never have its own parliament. So she stripped the country of its resources and belittled its people without them having the means to fight back against her equivocally in government. Its a people's right to govern themselves and all that, or at least that's been one of the messages of the last century.

Hadn't there not been a Scottish parliament since the early 1700s? I thought it was combined when the UK was formed.

It was devolved during the union yes. However when the Scottish people started campaigning to found a new one the British government did its damnedest to make sure it couldn't. Scotland's still part of Britain, we just have more say about things effecting our country nowadays. If Scotland had had a parliament back in the eighties we'd still have our oil. Heck we would have been independant from the UK in 1979 if enouch people had shown up for the referendum (there was enough "yes" votes for Scotland to become independant, but it didn't represent enough of the population due to no shows for it to occur). =P

I'll reiterate that people should have the right to govern themselves. Go say to an American/Australian/Canadian/Indian, etc that they shouldn't have gotten so uppity about Britain ruling them and see what happens.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
I'll reiterate that people should have the right to govern themselves. Go say to an American/Australian/Canadian/Indian, etc that they shouldn't have gotten so uppity about Britain ruling them and see what happens.

Well, I can't speak for Canadians, Australians, or Indians, but we'll point out that we won the war, and that now we're a union of fifty separate states that have already decided what we do if one or more decide they want to go off and form their own separate, non-subordinate government. It involves guns.

 Seaward wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
I'll reiterate that people should have the right to govern themselves. Go say to an American/Australian/Canadian/Indian, etc that they shouldn't have gotten so uppity about Britain ruling them and see what happens.

Well, I can't speak for Canadians, Australians, or Indians, but we'll point out that we won the war, and that now we're a union of fifty separate states that have already decided what we do if one or more decide they want to go off and form their own separate, non-subordinate government. It involves guns.

Yes, and the Irish did just the same back in the 20's. The British government was fairly conservative about giving its people ways of representing themselves. The Scottish parliament in question wasn't to represent Scotland as an independent nation, it was just to give Scotland more say in the ruling of Britain (ie England and the other ones). But that would've rested power from the Tories at the time, and their rule had to be absolute. The current Scottish independence movement is a result of the Scots not thinking that we have enough say in the ruling of our own country. Again, the English government is against it and not even open to entertaining Scotland remaining part of Britain, but just with the same amount of say as them.

Maybe she should just go to war again to get some more rights... =)

 Seaward wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
I'll reiterate that people should have the right to govern themselves. Go say to an American/Australian/Canadian/Indian, etc that they shouldn't have gotten so uppity about Britain ruling them and see what happens.

Well, I can't speak for Canadians, Australians, or Indians, but we'll point out that we won the war, and that now we're a union of fifty separate states that have already decided what we do if one or more decide they want to go off and form their own separate, non-subordinate government. It involves guns.

Exactly. You only get to be free if you know, become free. Whining about it is just annoying, like French.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyrmalla wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
I'll reiterate that people should have the right to govern themselves. Go say to an American/Australian/Canadian/Indian, etc that they shouldn't have gotten so uppity about Britain ruling them and see what happens.

Well, I can't speak for Canadians, Australians, or Indians, but we'll point out that we won the war, and that now we're a union of fifty separate states that have already decided what we do if one or more decide they want to go off and form their own separate, non-subordinate government. It involves guns.

Yes, and the Irish did just the same back in the 20's. The British government was fairly conservative about giving its people ways of representing themselves. The Scottish parliament in question wasn't to represent Scotland as an independent nation, it was just to give Scotland more say in the ruling of Britain (ie England and the other ones). But that would've rested power from the Tories at the time, and their rule had to be absolute. The current Scottish independence movement is a result of the Scots not thinking that we have enough say in the ruling of our own country. Again, the English government is against it and not even open to entertaining Scotland remaining part of Britain, but just with the same amount of say as them.

Maybe she should just go to war again to get some more rights... =)

Now you're thinking properly. You and England should a agree to a right proper scrum outside Kent for old time sake. No no war - Rugby! Winner gets the country. Loser gets haggis.

Inequality in the UK under Thatcher.

Oddly the win ratio for the Calcutta Cup does seem to be about the same as the poles for independance...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcutta_Cup

Why is equality for its own sake a good thing?

Can't stand her! She robbed me of the opportunity to slave away in a dark and freezing coal mine for pennies then die at forty due to a respiratory disease leaving my family destitute.

Thanks to her vindictive and evil policies i have to work in a clean, heated office and make a decent wage! the temerity of the woman!

On a more serious note it's rather difficult for me to have a real opinion of Thatcher (that's not just other peoples regurgitated opinion) due to the fact that i was, you know, 5 years old when she left office.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Heck we would have been independant from the UK in 1979 if enouch people had shown up for the referendum (there was enough "yes" votes for Scotland to become independant, but it didn't represent enough of the population due to no shows for it to occur). =P

- I read that as 'more people in scotland don't give a about politics than want to govern themselves'

Just over half of us in the uk think she was good for Britain.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/09/opinion-sharply-divide-margaret-thatcher

 Albatross wrote:
Why is equality for its own sake a good thing?

Not for its own sake but there are various aspects of society that arguably are reasons for more equality rather than less.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Why is equality for its own sake a good thing?

Not for its own sake but there are various aspects of society that arguably are reasons for more equality rather than less.

Such as? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I'm just curious about your take on it.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I have no issue with people disliking, hating policies and decisions enacted by Thatcher.

No issue with them articulating that either, but taking this savage glee in her death is something I do have issue with.

I would agree with this statement by Lord Mandelson

I'm not sure whether I saw her as an inspiration. I certainly saw her as a force to be reckoned with, I mean a political and electoral force that was almost overwhelming.

I think also, on reflection, to be honest, I would say that she introduced, she ushered in, a timely and necessary overhaul of the UK economy in many ways.

The problem I have with that reflection though is that I think in other ways she was too indifferent to the social consequences of the economic changes she was undertaking.

Also, comparing her to Hitler was easily one of the stupidest things I've read on dakka, and boy have I seen some doozies.

The real point to notice is that New Labour quietly continued Thatcherism in all its forms, especially harsh social reform. Did they undo the 'damage' of Thatcherism. No. And they never will because they know that socialism doesnt work, Thatcherism does and with a little spin they can constantly pass off all the negative implications as 'Tory caused. All that requires to succeed is enough half-backed ignorant fools to look at the old left-right balance and beleive we live in the politics of the sixties and seventies. Comments like those from Wyrmalia prove such ifgnorance is alive and kicking.


Socialists. Think a moment (if you can). Which is 'worse from a left wing point of view?

1. A Tory leader who says, for the sake of our collective futures the industry of the north will pay. There will be hardship but the nation will remain.

2. A Labour leader who says, for the sake of our collective futures the industry of the north will continue to pay, we will do nothing about it. However we will point to our predecessors and blame them and tell the working lcass we are their saviours while crushing the unions even further than Thatcher did. All we ask of you is to be stupid enough to vote for the Red Rose on the vain hope we actually give a feth about you.

Thatcher was at the least honest.

 Albatross wrote:
Why is equality for its own sake a good thing?

Equality in government?

Um... The British Government is essentially the English government with mild input from the others. England has the largest population, thus it gets the most say. if the English say they want something to happen then the other countries have to do it, even if they vote against it. Thus its the case that if say every Scottish Mp were to vote against a measure in parliament, but the English mp voted against it, the policy wouldn't pass. That policy could be something to do about the welfare of Britain, or just that of Scotland. It doesn't matter, if its discussed in the British parliament its a moot point on who the point actually effects.

I kind of like the idea that my government can do something without the English one waying in constantly.

PredaKhaine wrote:

Just over half of us in the uk think she was good for Britain.

Yes, and shall we look at the population numbers for Britain? Not even 20% of the British population lives outside of England. So in actuality you mean of the 80% of English people, 50% thought her term was good. Of that 50% how many of those people live in the South East of England, one of the highest population centers, how many said that they were positive?

You want freedom? Invade Kent. With claymores. Be sure to shout out "yooooooooo can take ourrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr lives, yoool nevahrrrrrrrr taaaaaaaaaaake our FreDDDDDDoMMM! Glarrrrr!" Come on, you know you want to.

I ah... but they have a revolutionary war LARP group there. If you use Claymores vs muskets you're going to have a bad time (but look cool doing it).

Then again, tell that to Jack Churchill.

 Wyrmalla wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Why is equality for its own sake a good thing?

Equality in government?

Um... The British Government is essentially the English government with mild input from the others. England has the largest population, thus it gets the most say. if the English say they want something to happen then the other countries have to do it, even if they vote against it. Thus its the case that if say every Scottish Mp were to vote against a measure in parliament, but the English mp voted against it, the policy wouldn't pass. That policy could be something to do about the welfare of Britain, or just that of Scotland. It doesn't matter, if its discussed in the British parliament its a moot point on who the point actually effects.

I kind of like the idea that my government can do something without the English one waying in constantly.

PredaKhaine wrote:

Just over half of us in the uk think she was good for Britain.

Yes, and shall we look at the population numbers for Britain? Not even 20% of the British population lives outside of England. So in actuality you mean of the 80% of English people, 50% thought her term was good. Of that 50% how many of those people live in the South East of England, one of the highest population centers, how many said that they were positive?

Equality in government?
So how come people in England have to pay for education? If I lived in scotland, I currently wouldn't owe 16k or so. That must've been a decision made when the english mp's were all asleep and couldn't argue

The poll wasn't conducted by me - so I don't mean any % of anywhere Here's some better figures for you from later in the article.
ICM Research interviewed a random sample of 965 adults aged 18+ online on the afternoon of 8 April 2013.

So 482.5 people thought she was good for britain. In an internet poll.

According to the article "More than half (55%) of English voters rate Thatcher as having been good for Britain, compared with 34% of the Welsh respondents questioned, and just 23% of Scots. And within that overall English score there is another divide: in the south fully 60% of voters judge her record as good against 47% who say the same thing in the north."

I linked to it as I though it was interesting.

 Albatross wrote:
Why is equality for its own sake a good thing?

My best suggestion would be that you read The Spirit Level, but basically more equal societies have lower crime, mental illness, violence and other undesirable things.

PredaKhaine wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Why is equality for its own sake a good thing?

Equality in government?

Um... The British Government is essentially the English government with mild input from the others. England has the largest population, thus it gets the most say. if the English say they want something to happen then the other countries have to do it, even if they vote against it. Thus its the case that if say every Scottish Mp were to vote against a measure in parliament, but the English mp voted against it, the policy wouldn't pass. That policy could be something to do about the welfare of Britain, or just that of Scotland. It doesn't matter, if its discussed in the British parliament its a moot point on who the point actually effects.

I kind of like the idea that my government can do something without the English one waying in constantly.

PredaKhaine wrote:

Just over half of us in the uk think she was good for Britain.

Yes, and shall we look at the population numbers for Britain? Not even 20% of the British population lives outside of England. So in actuality you mean of the 80% of English people, 50% thought her term was good. Of that 50% how many of those people live in the South East of England, one of the highest population centers, how many said that they were positive?

Equality in government?
So how come people in England have to pay for education? If I lived in scotland, I currently wouldn't owe 16k or so. That must've been a decision made when the english mp's were all asleep and couldn't argue

The poll wasn't conducted by me - so I don't mean any % of anywhere Here's some better figures for you from later in the article.
ICM Research interviewed a random sample of 965 adults aged 18+ online on the afternoon of 8 April 2013.

So 482.5 people thought she was good for britain. In an internet poll.

According to the article "More than half (55%) of English voters rate Thatcher as having been good for Britain, compared with 34% of the Welsh respondents questioned, and just 23% of Scots. And within that overall English score there is another divide: in the south fully 60% of voters judge her record as good against 47% who say the same thing in the north."

I linked to it as I though it was interesting.

Yay, so we managed to get a domestic policy put through, Big woot. Its up to the English government if they want to have "free" education. That doesn't change the point that the English government still gets a say in a great many areas of Scottish politics that it shouldn't.

0.o Throwing out numbers that clarify that those who weren't receiving the poor end of her policies is your point? There's one Tory MP in the whole of Scotland now, (who is generally regarded as being a lapdog for Cameron, seeing as she said that the Scottish people are "wasters". ...Way to represent your people) what's that say for people's respect for the Tory party nowadays? The Tory party are pariahs in Scottish politics because of her. When the Conservatives got voted into government a few years ago it nothing but improve the independence movement. The Scottish people just looked down south and thought, "wow, they voted that lot in again. Better get away quick before they screw our country up another time".

Oh look one of their first policies was to sell off Sherwood Forest for logging...

Godspeed, Mrs. Thatcher. 87 was a good run.

Love her or hate her, she had bigger balls than most statesmen.

PredaKhaine wrote:

The poll wasn't conducted by me - so I don't mean any % of anywhere Here's some better figures for you from later in the article.
ICM Research interviewed a random sample of 965 adults aged 18+ online on the afternoon of 8 April 2013.

So 482.5 people thought she was good for britain. In an internet poll.

According to the article "More than half (55%) of English voters rate Thatcher as having been good for Britain, compared with 34% of the Welsh respondents questioned, and just 23% of Scots. And within that overall English score there is another divide: in the south fully 60% of voters judge her record as good against 47% who say the same thing in the north."

I linked to it as I though it was interesting.

I sense an "I'm alright Jack" attitude to those polled, which is itself a product of her idealism. I hope as time goes on we can start caring about things which don't effect us, but then you look at how many British people are ok with taking money off the already poor disabled and it doesn't look good.

 Seaward wrote:
Stay classy, Glasgow.

You know you might be on the wrong side when a former member of the IRA's Army Council at the time they tried to assassinate her is opposed to street parties celebrating her death

Sinn Fein's Martin McGuinness has said people should not celebrate the death of Baroness Thatcher.

The former prime minister died on Monday aged 87 after suffering a stroke while staying at the Ritz hotel in central London.

Later on Monday, "street parties" were held in Londonderry and west Belfast as well as other parts of the UK.

In a tweet, Mr McGuinness said people should "resist celebrating the death of Margaret Thatcher".

He added: "She was not a peacemaker but it is a mistake to allow her death to poison our minds."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-22078303