The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

Forever England

Posted on July 12, 2019 by

Hey readers, remember that time when England went to war with Germany?

You know, just England, under its Union Jack flag. Nobody else.

(Bedfordshire’s crew was in fact British and Canadian.)

Always remember what they really think of us, and what their “precious Union” really is, when they forget to pretend.

Print Friendly

    146 to “Forever England”

    1. Merkin Scot says:

      Exactly! And the Scots will be first in the firing line in Iran.

    2. Fergus Green says:

      There’ll always be an England.

      But there will not be a UK for much longer.

    3. jimnarlene says:

      Plus ça change.

    4. CameronB Brodie says:

      It is one thing when foreigners confuse England for Britain and ignore Scotland entirely. It’s another when the UK government does it. That is the point when political union becomes an articulation of English nationalism and English fascism.

    5. Capella says:

      Cunningham and Craig sound suspiciously Scottish to me.

    6. David Mooney says:

      It’s coming up for an election year in the U.S. and Trump is saber rattling trying to provoke a conflict with Iran, a trade war with China and encouraging a Tory government to no deal Brexit which will assist in destabilising Europe, which – of course – would suit the American very nicely.

      Who would have guessed eh.

    7. Sharny Dubs says:

      As with the Scots that were “sacrificed” during the Dunkirk withdrawal so the English troops could be saved.

      Aye well, same old same old

    8. dakk says:

      Typically cringey shit ‘journalism’ from the bbc.

      Like something an ignorant student intern might produce.

      A more hard hitting relevant piece might be how ‘england’ got it’s arse kicked out of Basra and Helmond by a few rag tag insurgents.

      Brave stoic england no more.

    9. John Wood says:

      “who do you think you are kidding Mr Hitler
      If you think old ENGLAND’s done
      We are the boys who will stop your little game …”

      Dad’s Army had a token Scotsman of course, whose main contribution was to say ‘We’re all doomed’.

      England has always seen itself as synonymous with the UK. Scotland and Wales are just irritating provinces who refuse to be properly English. The Irish are literally ‘beyond the Pale’.

      Flanders and Swann did a great parody in their ‘Song of Patriotic Prjudice (The English are best) back in the 1960s. Some things never change.

      But we expect all that. What is harder to understand is why those ‘Ulster Dvots’ and others of the Orange flavour seem so keen to be English? Perhaps it was just that Tory aspiration to be part of the wealthy and powerful who ran things? If so I can see that melting rapidly in the heat of Brexit as England itself is bought and sold for US gold,

      Quite a big parcel of rogues there.

    10. Corrado Mella says:

      One of the instruments of fascism is to replace reality with an alternate universe where only the Dear Leader and Overlord and his history has happened.

      When Scotland becomes independent and the BritNazi Establishment parasite withers and dies, many in England will wake up from a slumber, a drugged stupor induced by the poison this parasite injects onto the populace to stun them.

      It will be a relief for billions of humans through the planet, those that know what horrors the BritNazi Establishment has bestowed onto millions of innocents.

      Native Americans, slaughtered in their hundreds of thousands.

      Aboriginal Australians, classified as “fauna” and hunted for amusement.

      Indians and Irish, invaded, colonised, pilloried, pillaged, deported, famished and ultimately partitioned.

      Africans, enslaved and sold like property, and apartheid inflicted on them – Nelson Mandela incarcerated as a terrorist.

      Chagossians evicted from their island, and all their animals, pets included, gassed and left to rot.

      Scots oppressed, invaded, their homes torched, forcefully removed from their centenary family land, deported, their heritage denied for centuries.

      What kind of beastly bastards can lord their history with this – and more – and still dictate onto others?

      No self-awareness, at all?
      Are they humans?

    11. David Agnew says:

      Britishness is Englishness and vice versa?

      I for one never felt British. Why would I? It was never my identity. To me it was a collective pronoun and how could you ever feel affinity or a connection for grammar unless you are punctuation?

      Therein lies the rub. I remember one academic, hand-wringing his way through an article of how Britishness could be whatever you wanted it to mean, and wasn’t that nice. I have lost count of the number of pro-union folk declaring that it was a cure to nationalism, because Britishness was a non nationalistic national identity. Frankly the more I looked at it, the more Britishness looked like a 300 year old shite joke about 3 men going into into pub and the punch line is how one man got the other two to buy his drinks for him.

      It could be that some English folk see it as interchangeable but think the Scots see it that way too? To be British is to be English. Is to be Scottish. Is to be Welsh. Is to be Irish. You can’t have the Britishness with the others. But I think there are too many who see it as being short hand for Great England. Problem is no one told the Scots. Or the Welsh. Or the Irish.

      For the yoon, the real Scottish hating kind mind you. The desire to be British is a desire to be English. But there is also a fear of the English. They’re terrified of what England would do to an independent Scotland. And they call us anti-English.

      lets be honest. The Union was a really shit idea in the long run.

    12. Andy Anderson says:

      This does not surprise me at all. Been in many conversations I’ve the years when this error is made. They do not like being corrected.

    13. CageyBee says:

      Even though they managed to remove Pontius Pilate’s bodyguard as the first of foot the oldest serving regiment is still Scottish :- the Coldstream Guards

    14. kapelmeister says:

      The same BBC travel site has an instagram account. One picture has a caption informing us that North Uist has one of the most irregular coastlines in Great Britain.

      Do you have to be geographically and historically ignorant to be employed at the travel section of the BBC?

    15. Athanasius says:

      As I’ve said repeatedly, the English don’t distinguish between England and the UK.

    16. CameronB Brodie says:

      David Agnew siad:

      “I for one never felt British. Why would I? It was never my identity. To me it was a collective pronoun and how could you ever feel affinity or a connection for grammar unless you are punctuation?”

      This highlights how it is not possible to be an ethical rationalist and patriotic to Britain, which is supra-national entity. In order to be patriotic to Britain, one has to imagine the constituent nations did not exist before yoonyawn, and that they do not exist at this point in time. In the mean time, this supra-national entity must poses a cultural character of sorts, in order to function. The full-English Brexit exposes the nature of this character to be culturally English, xenophobic and authoritarian in nature, i.e. an expansionist form of English nationalism.

    17. call me dave says:

      Ha Ha!

      But but…As my Uncle George in the Army (who trudged across North Africa and up Italy in WWII) often said to me in the 1950s..Davy boy never forget this laddie,

      England stood alone! Then gave a hearty laugh!

    18. Bob Mack says:

      I am not British, I am a Scot. I used to watch the old war films on TV and inevitably the main characters would talk about England. Even Basil Rathbone talked about England fighting the Nazis alone during his films as Holmes.

      England has never fought alone. Half the world’s population assisted it admirably. They airbrush anything from history which interferes with the gallant and heroic view they have of themselves.

      From the time of the Crusades till present they have created a fantasy world, but one which they really believe to be true.

      National pride is one thing. Delusion is something else.

    19. CameronB Brodie says:

      I said he siad when I should have said he said. 😉

    20. Andy White says:

      The dead included:
      DICK, JOHN ROWAN, Seaman, (no. LT/JX 224890), Royal Naval Patrol Service, Son of Thomas and Elizabeth Dick, of Girvan, Ayrshire; husband of Mary Ann Dick, of Girvan.
      DUNCAN, ANDREW WATT, Chief Engineman, (no. LT/X 412ET), Royal Naval Reserve (Patrol Service), Son of William and Isabella Duncan, of Rosehearty, Aberdeenshire; husband of Isabella Duncan, of Rosehearty.
      LEE, WILLIAM, Leading Seaman, (no. LT/X 18212A), Royal Naval Reserve (Patrol Service), Son of John and Margaret Lee, of Garrabost, Isle of Lewis.
      In addition, there are two further casualties simply classified as ‘British’: MCCRINDLE, ALEXANDER ALLAN, Seaman, (no. LT/JX 198997), MCKENZIE, ANGUS, Stoker, (no. LT/KX 114362.

    21. dandydons1903 says:

      Most English view England as the UK and the UK as England.

    22. Conan the Librarian says:

      Brian Carlton is an American. They say England when they mean Britain a lot over there. Doesn’t excuse the the BBC for publishing it unedited of course.

    23. CameronB Brodie says:

      As far as I’m aware, it is not possible to be an ethical individualist and a nationalist, at the same time. The former respects the Other, where as the later oppresses the Other (see the full-English Brexit).

      Patriotism and pluralism: identification and compliance in the post-national polity


      The paper discusses the identity-building power and motivational force of patriotism. The basic idea underlying the discussion is that far from being a mere irrational and destructive force, patriotism is an expression of ‘existing human social identity.’ Thus, it argues that rather than dismissing patriotism altogether as an undesirable and/or irrational phenomenon, we need to understand how to discriminate between alternative forms of patriotism while investigating what constitutional reforms might be required to support those forms of patriotic identification that are morally desirable.

      I argue that to flourish, desirable forms of patriotism (what I call Ethical Patriotism) require a political milieu where forms of subsidiarity, functional representation and local participation combine to produce a more democratic and decentralized system of governance. Applied to a post-national polity like the EU, this conclusion invites to rethink the European constitutional project so as to make it less elitist and more open to influence and participation from below.

      Keywords:cosmopolitanism, communitarianism, identity, nationalism, governance, Europe

    24. Clapper57 says:

      @ John Wood @ 2.47pm

      Yes John…and he was right yon character Private Frazer…”we’re doomed”…but only…only if we stay in the UKOK ….They don’t like it up them hence the ‘war’ fund they have set up to save the Union….we better watch John or our names ” vill also go on ze list”…not from the BritNat secret Service cause seems they let you get away with any old shit in Brexit BritNatLand especially leaking documents …..that’s easy peasy apparently…any old hack for sale can access and publish them…then a couple nights later said hack can appear on a major news channel reviewing papers and defending what she did ….only in Brexit BritNatLand Lol.

      Oh England my Lionheart indeed….more like pussies the way they are letting the uber w*nks take over their country..hell mend them cause this was a long time in the making.

    25. Proud Cybernat says:

      Eh – lemme guess. You like the colour yelloW?

    26. Doug says:

      Scottish, never British.

    27. Reluctant Nationalist says:

      England. Nice place except for all the glish.

    28. Clootie says:


      I should know better after all these years but you managed to push all my buttons with that article.
      It is mainly because I have suffered that crap all my life. They cannot tell the difference between England, Great Britain and the U.K. They wave the Union Flag when England are playing.

      It will get much worse now as the new Tories seek to crush our identity again.

      Why do people still vote for a “Union” which is in fact an occupation by another nation.

    29. blackhack says:

      Looks like someone at the bbc has been reading too many commando comics

    30. Fergus Green says:

      “What’s your name?”

      “Don’t tell him Pike”

    31. Republicofscotland says:

      Lets not forget that past history has shown brave Scots that became cannon fodder, were expendable, (General Wolfe quoted as such) to further the British/English empire.

    32. Helena Brown says:

      I had to correct a lady from Georgia who described me as English, she got the message.
      Why do some people think that the English are wonderful, competent etc. They are just lucky, methinks their luck is about to run out.

    33. Back in the day before IT, when I wandered the highways and byways peddling my wares, or some such, I stayed over in hotels the length and breadth of England.
      You had to fill in a wee card with your name, address and nationality.
      I was Scottish then, I am Scottish now, and will be to my dying day in Independent Scotland.
      There is no such nationality as ‘british’.
      Even the ‘english’ don’t believe that

    34. Johnj says:

      It’s the BBC. What does anyone expect. They’re either stupid or ignorant, possibly both.

    35. Brian MacLeod says:

      But England was going to stand alone.

      Churchill’s plan was to abandon Scotland to the Nazis if they invaded via Scotland, no matter how much we “screamed”.

    36. Back in the day before IT, when I wandered the highways and byways peddling my wares, or some such, I stayed over in hotels the length and breadth of England.
      You had to fill in a wee card with your name, address and nationality.
      I was Scottish then, I am Scottish now, and will be to my dying day in Independent Scotland.
      There is no such nationality as ‘british’.
      Even the ‘english’ don’t believe that, except when a Scot is winning at tennis, or cycling, or the Gowff.
      Of course when there star starts to wane, they revert to being ‘the Scot’.
      England won the war.
      Get over it, Sweaties.

    37. Platinum says:

      What angers me in particular about this awful article from the BBC is the claiming of the CWGC as English. It is in fact not even British. It’s an international organisation and to suggest otherwise is an insult to all the soldiers from all over the world that fought in both world wars.

    38. Lenny Hartley says:

      Cageybee its the Royal Scots who claim to be Pontious Pilates bodyguard, but since they only go back to 1633 thry are strecthing it a bit…

    39. Robbo says:

      It reminds me of a holiday my wife and I had in Florida when we visited a museum. On the entry turnstile was an English women who enquired ‘are you from the UK’ in which we replied yes from Scotland and she replied well I suppose that is part of the UK. Their ignorance knows no bounds.

    40. Capella says:

      Gosh. Alex Salmond trial pencilled in to start just as BREXIT happens. What an astonishing coincidence.

    41. Scozzie says:

      The Scots were cannon fodder nothing more nothing less..SO VERY SAD for all those lost lives.
      My mum had a WW1 neighbour who she (and another neighbour) looked after daily who was tormented with what would be recognised today as PTSD and halucinations – so very sad.

      Bringing ourselves up-to-date…do we wish to be economic cannon fodder for Brexit?
      We are facing a potential no deal Brexit and possible GE with all the consequences these brings.

      If GE, what might be the SNP manifesto?
      – Independence negotiations begin with an SNP win
      – Push for second EU referendum
      – Stronger for Scotland (diabolical 2017 tactic)

      The independence movement needs to be thinking about this and therefore influencing the SNP deliberations of a GE manifesto.

      I confess, I’m no longer a member due to their disastrous 2017 ‘Stronger for Scotland’ approach but am willing to ‘get back on the horse’ with a direct push for independence in their manifesto.

      I personally think we are at a ‘dog eat dog’ situation. Diplomacy and good will has well left the building. This is survival mode now.

    42. JMD says:

      Republicofscotland says:
      12 July, 2019 at 3:48 pm
      “Lets not forget that past history has shown brave Scots that became cannon fodder, were expendable, (General Wolfe quoted as such) to further the British/English empire.”

      Sigh… of course they were expendable. Widespread tendency on here to make statements of the bleedin obvious.

      Anyone who voluntarily signs up for, or allows themselves to be conscripted into, fighting another country’s wars can expect to be held in contempt and disdain, and yes indeed be “expendable”.

    43. Robert Louis says:

      When the ‘UK signs treaties, they are usually titled ‘Anglo-something’. The UK and French treaty for Concorde was called the Anglo-French concorde treaty. Indeed, at its launch, it was widely called the ‘Anglo-French’ concorde. Their were others too, the ‘Anglo-Irish agreement’, and so on.

      As I and other often point out, England = Britin = England.

      That is how it is. It is how it has always been. Scotland is an English colony, termed, ‘british’ to make us feel better and not notice. They did the same to all of their colonies.

      I could weep for the unionist total saddoes in Scotland who worship being under british English colonial rule. If you are from Scotland, no matter how much you slavishly worship London rule, no matter how much you grovel to your English ‘masters’ , you will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER be seen in their eyes as a ‘real’ Brit. Only the English are the ‘real’ British.

      oh, and never forget, its was only the British English who ‘won the war’.

    44. Arthur Thomson says:

      It has always interested me that Russia and the Soviet Union were seen as interchangeable just like England and Britain. Russia and England have much in common in their disrespect of those around them. Maybe it goes some way to explaining the imperialist mindset of Corbyn and his exploitative following.

      Like others I am Scottish not British and having lived for decades in England, no-one has ever been confused by my explanation that I am a Scotsman living abroad.

      Among the first things removed from a slave is his/her identity. I do not have the slave mentality. It saddens me how many people of Scottish origin are so afraid to throw off the yoke. I trust that the tide is turning as Brexit exposes the true weakness of those who will always wish to subjugate them. Fear and lack of self-confidence are difficult but not impossible to overcome. Many of us have already achieved it and I am confident that each day a few more find a reason to have a backbone.

    45. Robert Louis says:

      Capella at 422pm,

      What a surprise! Surely just a coincidence. And they think we don’t notice. Utter grovelling, London serving, b***ards. For London’s ‘gold’ they are bought and sold etc..

    46. Kenny J says:

      You guys did’nt read to the end para’s.
      England morphs into Britain a coupleof times.
      I remember Obama, intervied on our BBC, God bless, in 2014, said exactly the same thing. When it was obvious he meant the UK.
      Corrected by the BBC shit, no f****** fear, my regard for him went toon the stank.

    47. Kenny J says:

      Just had a thought, what the fuck was my father doing in Burma, from which he never returned, if it was only F******** England.

    48. Scozzie says:

      Capella @ 4.22pm
      Thank you for the link, although it makes me boak to click the BBC link.
      I am so gutted to see him flung under the bus in this way – this whole Alex Salmond case is farcical.

    49. galamcennalath says:

      I have a tactic I’ve used countless times. It get’s the point firmly across.

      Person: “English”, referring to me.

      Me: “You Xs are all the same”, where X is the nationality adjacent to Person. I’ve described a US citizen as Mexican, and an English person as French.

      Person: “I’m not X”, indignantly

      Me: “And I’m not English!”

      I predict the mix up between England, UK, ‘Britain’, and the constituent countries of the UK will sort itself out shortly. Very soon everyone across the world will know exactly where Scotland is. The demise of the UK won’t go unnoticed and will be celebrated by many.

    50. Calum McKay says:

      Most history books referring to the uk from union up to 1st WW, written in the uk refer to the uk as England!

      All foreign written history books written during this period refer to the uk exclusively as England!

      Unless you manage your own affairs, you are invisible!

      Looks like uk is going to war with Iran in the US”s new foreign venture, talk of buying more war ships, what a vile and pathetic breed of human the tories are!

    51. Skip_NC says:

      I read a very similar article in the News & Observer, Raleigh’s local newspaper and North Carolina’s newspaper of record some years ago. No acknowledgement thereof? Hmm.

    52. Dr Jim says:

      Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother

      See how much they like titles, she gave herself two Queens in hers so’s she’d be more important than her daughter who was only one Queen, and they’re still doing it, awarding themselves *honours* so the furriners and the commoners will judge them as more Royally and importanty sounding, CBEs MBEs Barons Baronessess Earls Dukes Viscounts Knights Lords, they even gave Universities the right to hand out honorary Doctorates to folk who don’t know anything about the subject of the Doctorate, that really bangs the idea of meritocracy right on the head,or how about Bishops in the House of Lords, I mean how much sillier can they get, a special *House* to put Lords in to keep them separate from *The Commons*

      What worlds in their minds do these England folk inhabit?

      Now if one didn’t know any better one would think that those people had an inferiority complex and were covering it up by self aggrandising, I don’t think that though, not me, I’m Scottish so I have virtually no right to think at all

      Anything else Memsaab, Saab, I’m bowing lowly as I walk backwards…..quietly

    53. Doug says:

      Time to dig out my Scotland/Iran badge.

      Worth every penny.

    54. Footsoldier says:

      Still majoring on BBC Scotland website political section ” – Blogger ordered to pay Kezia Dugdale’s legal expenses”. Now 4 days old.

    55. Abulhaq says:

      ‘As others see us’ ought to be like an envigorating cold shower, a tonic for mind and body.
      The Unionist lackeys by whose actions Scotland is turned into a mere English appendage deserve our total contempt.
      As I have written elsewhere, for Scotland, see England.

    56. John Jones says:

      I remember,many years ago on holiday in Spain, talking to a Dutchman who passed the remark that it was good that we were all together in Britain when I said I was Scots. I replied that it would also be good if the Netherlands were ruled from Germany, one convert later peace was established.

    57. Iain mhor says:

      BY DENTS HAY, M.A., Professor of Medieval History in the
      University of Edinburgh. (Pdf file)

      The terms ‘Britain’ and ‘Great Britain’ and its complicated relationship to the nations of these isles, is covered in this fabulous read – which I recommend to anyone who has an interest in the matter and of our history in general.
      I include here some exerpts, which I hope may encourage some to read the article in full. Its a brief and glorious romp through the history of these isles and all the usual suspects and arguments make an appearance.

      It begins:
      On 20th October 1604 King James VI and I proclaimed his assumption of the style “King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith &c.” The proclamation stated that the name was not “new-affected.” It was “the true and ancient name which God and time have imposed upon
      this Isle, extant and received in histories, in all maps and cartes wherein this Isle is described, and in ordinary letters to ourselves from divers foreign
      It was, moreover, “warranted also by authentical charters,
      exemplifications under seals, and other records of great antiquity giving us precedent for our doing, not borrowed out of foreign nations but from the acts of our progenitors, Kings of this Realm of England, both before and
      since the conquest.”

      And it ends:

      ‘ ….his attempt to impose a term which would unite his double inheritance. The “Great Britain” of the proclamation met with opposition, both in England and in Scotland. That it prevailed in the end was due in large part to the
      long history of “Britain” and “Great Britain” in the middle ages’

      Some exerpts include:

      “Anglo-British” and “Scoto-British” might still have their uses – George Buchanan, writing in the second half of the 16th century, complains that many foreigners and Englishmen use “Britain” both as a name for the Roman province and also for the whole island. But not only did Englishmen do this, we must note. The fullest defence of using “Briton” for any inhabitant of the island comes from the pen of John Major (*no not him! -ed) writing fifty years before Buchanan:
      At the present day there are, and for a long time have been, to speak accurately, two kingdoms in the island: the Scottish kingdom, namely, and the English…Yet all the inhabitants are Britons…I say, therefore, that all men born in Britain are Britons, seeing that on any other reasoning Britons could not be distinguished from other races.

      In 1474;
      in the instrument drawing up the proposal for a marriage between Cecily,the daughter of Edward IV of England, and James, son of James III of Scotland. Sitting at Edinburgh the commissioners on 26th October of that year, declared their purpose to be the advancement of the peace and prosperity of “this Nobill Isle, callit Gret Britanee.”…
      The aim of 1474 was, in fact, to be intermittently brought forward again and again: that “the difference between an Englishman and a Scot may nothenceforward be remembered,” as Archibald Whitelaw, archdeacon of Lothian, said at the outset of the fruitless marriage negotiations of 1484.
      The marriage of 1502 did not, alas, end hostilities, though it was to culminate in the Union of the Crowns.

      “…we should notice…the influence of humanistic Latin, which is felt on both sides of the Border from the beginning of the 16th century. There can, I consider, be no doubt that, for scholars attuned to the demands of the revived Latin, “Anglia” and “Scotia” had associations with a type of diction which they were anxious to be rid of, and “Britannia,” consecrated as it was by impeccable classical usage, was an attractive alternative. Certain it is that we find the word “Britain” cropping up with increasing frequency in the literature of the period.

      I hope you find it interesting and apologies for the length of the post.

    58. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      As I wrote in a recent posting, I used to get annoyed about this kind of thing, but now I say “keep it up”. It demonstrates to the PSBs just how delusional their pathetic one-sided attachments are.

    59. Footsoldier says:

      André Rieu website is just plain mixed up. On their website under concert info it says in English ” back in the United Kingdom and Ireland with a brand new show!”

      However click on any other language and it changes to England and Ireland – Scotland has vanished into the mists of Brigadoon. See it here:

    60. shiregirl says:

      England England England England England England


    61. CameronB Brodie says:

      “I personally think we are at a ‘dog eat dog’ situation. Diplomacy and good will has well left the building. This is survival mode now.”

      Human rationality is grounded in the need to survive and the needs that flow from this basic task. This is foundational in setting our general purpose in life, as individuals. It would not be rational for Scotland to allow itself to be removed from the EU, on the strength of English votes in a dodgy referendum, as doing so would undermine Scotland’s capacity to survive the forces of globalisation. Such an act of self-harm would require Scots to relinquish our popular sovereignty, which was only lent, and deny Scots have embodied human rights, which is not a good look, frankly. Especially if you’re a fan of constitutional democracy and the principle of universal human rights.

      Realism and Liberalism in International Relations

      Any student of international relations can be counted on to study the basic foundations of IR, which are the theories behind the study of IR itself. Among the most prevalent of these theories are realism and liberalism. Until the present, professors still speak of the motto from the 1651 work of Thomas Hobbes, entitled Leviathan, that speaks of the state of nature being prone to what Hobbes calls bellum omnium contra omnes or the war of all against all ( Hobbes : De Cive, 1642 and Leviathan, 1651), as well as Francis Fukuyama naming Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government (Fukuyama : The End of History and the Last Man, 1992).

      The above mentioned ‘state of nature’ is a central assumption in realist theory, holding that anarchy is a defined condition of the international system, as well as postulating that statecraft and subsequently, foreign policy, is largely devoted to ensuring national survival and the pursuit of national interests. Realism is, therefore, primarily concerned with states and their actions in the international system, as driven by competitive self-interest. Thus, realism holds that international organizations and other trans-state or sub-state actors hold little real influence, in the face of states as unitary actors looking after themselves….

    62. Abulhaq says:

      @Dr Jim
      Scotland was implicated in British imperialist shenanigans and was also a victim of them so with that total experience Scotland has much wisdom to offer.
      As for Iran,

    63. Serinde says:

      And yet, curiously, the very last image in that travel feature is of pipers playing at a place which the caption describes as the Ocracoke’s British cemetery. Is this like the clock that’s correct twice a day?

    64. grafter says:

      As I thought……Scotland doesn’t exist.

    65. CameronB Brodie says:

      Arthur Thomson @ 4:54pm.

      “It has always interested me that Russia and the Soviet Union were seen as interchangeable just like England and Britain.”

      The UK/Britain and the former Soviet Union, are/were both unitary states. Simples. Different characters of colonial imperialism obvs. but a similar evolutionary trajectory towards centralised political power and authoritarian cultural totalitarianism. ;(

    66. Wull says:

      I already posted the comment below on the previous post, not realising the present one had already opened. It was originally a response to some contributions which were discussing whether or not, or to what extent, votes in elections to Holyrood can be counted as a valid expression of the will of the Scottish people. Someone had seemed to hint that the sovereignty of the people in Scotland had been ‘restored’ in 1999, when Holyrood was established. My original intention was to take issue with that view.

      However, as usual, I failed to stick to that initial good intention, and what I eventually wrote became my usual far-too-long article-length comment. I apologise for this to those long-sufferers who will undoubtedly – and with perfect justification – groan, skim down and skip it. To them I say, just ignore this and scroll on, as you are entitled to do.

      I nevertheless post it just in case there is the odd occasional lurker, or contributor, who might enjoy or profit from it, or even from a very small part of it. I also revised it slightly before posting it here, and tried to take out some of the typos (although I probably added others).

      Wull says:
      12 July, 2019 at 2:56 pm

      The constitutional argument is not that Westminster ceased to have sovereignty over the Scottish people the minute the Holyrood parliament was set up, but that Westminster has never at any time held any ultimate sovereignty over the Scottish people. The Scots did not ‘regain’ their sovereignty in Scotland in 1999, courtesy of the bounty of the Labour Government of that day; they had never lost it in the first place, not even in 1707.

      For many long centuries prior to 1707, sovereignty in Scotland already lay with the Scottish people. It did not lie in any ultimate sense with either their parliament or their king, or even both of these combined. That combination of ‘monarch in parliament’ as sovereign had already become the case in and for England in 1707, when the Union Treaties with Scotland were signed. But it had never been the case in the Scotland, nor did the Union Treaties make it become so.

      The Union Treaties can be said to have fiddled with some secondary or tertiary elements of the way both the Scottish and the English systems of government worked, albeit in different ways in each case. But they did not touch or mitigate anything of primary constitutional significance in regard to either of the two parties involved. The fundamental constitutional law of Scotland remained as it always had been – especially the no. 1 principle that the people are sovereign in Scotland, as articulated in the early 14th Century (although the assumption no doubt goes a long way further back than that) – and the (significantly different) foundations of English constitutional law also continued as before, and in force for England, without alteration.

      That is why the UK, from the moment of its creation in 1707 right through until today, has always had two constitutions at work. There are two sets of constitutional law, two radically different ‘foundations’, actually operating simultaneously, within that entity known to the world as the UK. One in Scotland, and a different one in England.

      The English one also operated explicitly in Wales from the 16th Century onward, when Henry VIII imposed it – although I suppose it could be argued that he did so illegally – and it still effectively operates there. Likewise, if the English constitutional assumption did not already operate in all of Ireland beforehand, it came to do so from the 1800 Act of Union onward – until the birth of the Irish Republic, soon after World War I ended. Thereafter, the English constitutional assumptions continued to operate only in ‘Northern Ireland’, that ‘hived off’ part of the island which the UK retained (although the Republic continued to claim it).

      Within the current UK, therefore, the Scottish constitution operates in Scotland, as it always has done both before and after the Union was created, and English constitutional assumptions operate in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

      In general (although there are notable and worthy exceptions) many English people and most if not all English politicians, in particular those who sit at Westminster – and, unfortunately, even a few Anglicized Scottish ones – have a great deal of difficulty in getting their heads around these simple facts. They are not difficult facts to understand, and anyone with a basic grasp of the history of these islands and a rudimentary knowledge of the law(s) there operative, can easily get hold of the required information and work it out for themselves.

      So why is there such widespread ignorance about this in England, or among the English population?

      The problem is not with the availability of the material or with the very average intelligence that is required to understand the points at issue; it is with the will. If you don’t WANT to understand the reality of the situation, you won’t understand it. In fact, if you deliberately WANT to misunderstand it – or you simply DON’T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT IT – that is precisely what will happen.

      And if you WANT to carry on with your own particular fantasy concerning what you think the UK ought to be, but isn’t – rather than engaging with the reality of what it actually is, and always has been, both in terms of its legal foundations and present and ongoing existence – then you will remain exactly where, and become precisely what, you WANT to be. Namely – a fantasist living in your own fantasy-land, in a world of make-believe which you have imagined for yourself. You will have made yourself immune to the true situation, at least in this respect.

      You will even think that those who point out the realities to you are the fantasists, dismissing or denying or ignoring them accordingly. And you will do so when in fact the fantasist is you, not them. The reason you will act in this arrogant way is to defend your fantasy, even to make it impregnable, so that reality can never penetrate or even touch it. That is how important your ‘false imaginings’ have become to you. Having no doubt been developed – at least in England’s case (i.e. on the case of English culture and identity) – over many centuries.

      When I talk of ‘fantasy’ and ‘fantasists’ I mean exactly what these words convey, because there is something fundamentally wrong, inherently flawed and downright mistaken with what I can only call ‘the English imagination’. I do so with apologies to those good English people who are more realistic and well-informed of the true situation, and who therefore do not subscribe to that ‘English imagination’. But it is avery real thing, all the same. Let me explain.

      Insofar as the UK, like any other piece of ‘political geography’, is an ‘imagined space’, the typically ‘English imagination’ (as I have termed it) regards the whole of the UK as ‘England writ large’.

      The most frequent manifestation of this is the way and the ease with which they interchange the terms ‘English’ and ‘British’ as if they were synonyms, which they are not. To which we may add likewise, and as a consequence, how often the word ‘British’ is used subtly, or not so subtly, to turn successes in other parts of the UK into English successes. While any failures occurring n or to any part of the UK furth of England is presented ina way that makes it remain entirely the failure of that part alone, and not England’s.

      Transfer this mentality to constitutional realities, and the obvious ‘English assumption’ is that the so-called ‘British Constitution’ is uniquely, and nothing other than ‘the English Constitution’. And those who subscribe to this view are going to be astonished, even outraged, by anything which suggests otherwise, or even qualifies to some extent that assumption. This remains the case no matter how well documented, how legally and historically established, and how recently and continuously affirmed that ongoing fact – the reality of what we might call ‘the Scottish constitutional difference’ – might be.

      The ongoing existence and reality of the Scottish constitution is a simple fact which the ‘English imagination’ almost necessarily evades, and denies.

      I say ‘almost’ because it doesn’t actually have to evade and deny it; in practice, it does so by choice. Yet there is also an underlying logic (we might call it an ’emotional logic’) which makes the English psyche CHOOSE to go down this particular route. It could choose to pay greater attention to the facts of the matter, thereby becoming more rational about the whole thing, but it decides not to.

      The precise way in which the ‘English imagination’ imagines the UK, and the specifically English way in which it envisages and talks about ‘Britain’, are essential to English identity. Or, rather, to what English people see as their identity – although they could in fact and even quite easily learn to imagine that identity differently (especially if more ‘reality’ – including the Scottish reality, not as they imagine it to be, but as it actually is in itself – were allowed to penetrate it).

      The English – those vast majority of them, that is, who are imbued with what I have called ‘the English imagination’ – are in flat denial of what I will now call ‘the Scottish fact’. That is to say, they simply deny the reality of that fact which is the Scottish constitution. They deny its existence, its ongoing actuality, its force and its relevance, even to them (because if you are in a Union with another people or country you have to make an effort to understand them, and where they are coming from, not just physically but culturally and politically and in every other way). Those of ‘the English imagination’ have to deny ‘the Scottish fact’ (and in particular the Scottish constitutional fact) because that fact undermines, at the most basic and fundamental level, the (inherently false) picture that their minds have built up of ‘their’ – what they call ‘our’ – (beloved) ‘country’.

      (They even refer to it as ‘our’ Union, with an inflection which may unconsciously and paradoxically be using the word ‘our’ in a way which excludes rather than includes. (The manner and style in which Mrs May recently talked about Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP seemed to suggest that ‘they’, and anyone who had even the slightest sympathy for ‘them’ or ‘their’ agenda, were no part of ‘us’ or even of ‘our’ UK. Even though ‘they’ are actually citizens of the same UK! But then, the Tory Party does seem to have problems with the idea of citizenship. They have often played fast and loose with this notion in the past, guided by no greater principle than whatever seemed to be to their, or ‘our’ advantage – i.e. to the advantage of a Tory government, or of its conception of the UK’s immediate needs – at the time.)

      The depth of this problem should not be underestimated, especially as it affects ordinary English people, and not just their politicians. It is not enough for us Scots simply to lampoon it, or despise what is a very deep-rooted cultural reality in England. The way we ‘imagine’ our countries is no small matter, affecting something very deep within us. If that is true for us, as Scots, it is laos true for the English, as English. Even when we don’t like what our countries or their leaders do, we still belong to them, no matter what. They are connected and interwoven with who we really are; we are rooted there. The stories we tell ourselves about ourselves, about our ‘place’ and ‘our history’ and ‘our origins’, the way we imagine the ‘space’ we inhabit, and the contours we presume it to have – all these ‘imagined realities’ have a real effect on us. These stories that we tell ourselves are an essential part of the web and the woof that forms our – our what? – well, quite simply, our very ‘selves’.

      Insofar as the English people do not tell or attempt to tell the true story of the ‘space’ or ‘place’ they inhabit, or don’t to correct whatever may be false in the story they tell themselves – insofar as they refuse any attempt to question the underlying assumptions on which their story is based, and which has an effect on the choices they make, their action in the world – insofar as this is happening (or in the latter case not happening), something unhealthy is going on. To be ‘in denial’ is not to be in a healthy state of mind. Especially when what you are denying is something as real as Ben Nevis. Because the Scottish constitutional fact, and the manner in which it remains a constitutive element of what the UK actually is, and always has been, is indeed as real – and as undeniable – as Ben Nevis. The constitutional landscape of the UK does not exist without it.

      The ‘English imagination’ affects the English collective psyche, and both have an effect on English action in the world. England stands in dire need of a re-ordering and re-interpretation of her own history, so as to see her contribution to the world in fresh ways, on the basis of which she will then be able to launch herself more authentically into the future. Such re-conceptualizing the past means shedding some old, old stories, incorporating others which were suppressed, and reaching a new synthesis concerning who the English nation really are, and what they want to be and become. Even after the UK no longer exists, that will include understanding afresh what the UK actually was, even constitutionally. Which will mean taking the Scottish constitutional aspect of the matter seriously.

      This re-ordering of the historical imagination – and it is one of the strong points of the English imagination that it IS very historical, even if that goes along with the tendency to distort and exploit history – is bound to happen after Scotland becomes an independent country again. At present, however, England is stuck. In a time-warp, basically.

      She can’t genuinely modernise herself unless this kind of thing starts happening. But so far, sadly, she resists, even vehemently. As if hanging on for dear life to the railings of a sinking Titanic. As Scots, we can help her – and ourselves – into the contemporary and future world. By becoming independent from her.

      Insofar as the English nation, as a ‘collective entity’, continues to acquiesce in imagining a false and radically distorted picture of what they consider to be ‘their’ country, those who subscribe to the ‘false consciousness’ which inevitably ensues will continue to do damage to themselves and others.

      There is an underlying English assumption that the 1707 Acts of Union which constituted the UK and brought it into existence amounted to nothing less than – at last! – the eventual success and complete vindication of the project to absorb Scotland into England which Edward I had launched four centuries earlier, at the end of the 13th Century. However we may regard these Acts of Union, and whatever feelings we may have about them, they most certainly were no such thing.

      This unstated but underlying English assumption about the Union being the accomplishment of Edward I’s designs may be an English cultural fact of far greater importance than most people – including most English people – actually realise. Most people’s conscious knowledge of history is very limited, but history and the way history is interpreted nevertheless have their effects on them, in all kinds of subliminal ways. For England to progress in this modern world of ours, the English psyche needs to be exorcised of the ghost of Edward I, and have done with him.

      If the Edwardian imperial dream continues to exercise so much leverage (even unconsciously) on the English imagination and on the psyche that goes with it, the falsity of the premises on which that dream rested now need to be exposed afresh. So too with the damage which has ensued from subsequent manifestations of the same spirit, constructed on the same inherently false foundations. The lie at the bottom of all this, which also underlay so many other subsequent enterprises down through the centuries, and in which so many post-1707 Scots also colluded and greatly profited, needs to be explicitly rejected. Not just by the English, but by all of us. This will never happen, however, unless Scotland becomes independent, and the UK breaks up. That will encourage both parties to the erstwhile Union to have a long, hard look at themselves until – exorcised of ghosts that no longer serve any useful purpose (and actully never did) – both our countries will be able to forge ahead, making their own new, revised and hopefully positive and peace-oriented contributions on the world stage.

      Yet the ghost has not yet gone.

      The old and now thoroughly bankrupt and discredited premises on which so much of the English political imagination still rests are inherently intertwined with the Brexit fiasco. The outcome of the Brexit referendum was hugely influenced by this false English consciousness concerning what England/Britain is. It is this false consciousness which now needs to be eliminated, for England’s and the English people’s own good (and everyone else’s good as well). The only way this can be done is by the Scots exercising their constitutional rights in a forward-looking, future-oriented way. When Scotland brings the UK Union to an end and becomes, once again, an independent country within the concert of nations, the English psyche and the assumptions which underlie it will change. Not automatically, perhaps, but simply because it will have to.

      England will no longer be what it seemed to be, especially to the English in their own understanding of themselves an their mission or destiny in the world. The Scots’ action in removing themselves from the Union changes the whole trajectory of English history, as previously conceived, especially by the English themselves. In fact, that trajectory had already changed course, moreover in an irreversible way, soon after the end of World War II. In 1947, in fact, when India became independent. The end of the Union and dismemberment of the UK will only be the final stage of a movement that became fully manifest then, although it had already been under way since well before World War II began. England will become, even in the way English people imagine her, just that: England, and nothing more. Despite her initial resistance to this unaccustomed reality, she will soon enjoy (and even enjoy enormously) being herself – simply herself – again.

      Shedding our pretensions about ourselves is always, in the end, a liberation. If that is true for individuals, it is also true for nations. Scotland will have to learn this too, and be liberated from whatever is false in our own cherished conceptions of ourselves. And in the process come to the realisation (at least some of the more extreme idealists among us) that we too are not all that we pretend to be … !

      The condition for England becoming her true and – let’s make a value judgement – undoubtedly better self is that Scotland first takes off, and does the same for herself. As Scots, we have a duty to help our southern neighbour shed her false consciousness, so that she stops harming herself, and others.
      There is a direct link between ‘false consciousness’ and ‘self-harm’. This is so not just for individuals, but even on the part of massive collective entities – or ‘identities’ – like that of England and the English people.

      Come on Scotland – save yourself from England; and help to SAVE ENGLAND FROM HERSELF!

    67. CameronB Brodie says:

      Given the context of international human rights law, such as the “Right to Identity” and the “Right to Development”, just how well does the British constitution serve in protecting the inalienable human rights of those living in Scotland? Was it any good protecting our EU citizenship? Remember, British constitutional law takes a characteristicly Tory ,’One Nation’, approach to natural law. That is, the State is blind to the natural law that underpins Westminster’s assumed sovereignty, subsequently denying natural justice to Scotland.

      Roger Masterman: How ‘British’ would a ‘British’ Bill of Rights be?

      The perception that the protections afforded by domestic courts under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) should replicate the rights enforced by the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg has been a leitmotif of judicial reasoning in rights cases since the implementation of the HRA. The HRA is an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament, yet domestic law alone cannot provide an adequate account of its effects.

      The HRA’s ‘Convention Rights’ are – at the very least – defined in the same terms as rights found in the European Convention on Human Rights, and their domestic effects are – as a result of the combined effects of s.2(1) and s.6 HRA – conditioned by the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. The HRA may well be a domestic statute, giving rise to rights enforceable in domestic law, but the Strasbourg roots of its substantive protections are inescapable.

      As a result, questions relating to the nature and character of ‘the Convention Rights’ – are they domestic rights, defined and enforceable by domestic courts? Or are they European rights, enforceable by domestic courts, but defined at Strasbourg? – have provided a recurring subtext to many HRA decisions. The visible effects of this debate – and the general judicial tendency to downplay the distinctly domestic content of ‘the Convention Rights’ – can be seen in the numerous suggestions that domestic judges applying the HRA should only ‘take their lead’ from Strasbourg, should follow the ‘clear and constant’ jurisprudence of the European Court, and should provide ‘no less’ but ‘no more’ protection than would the Strasbourg Court, have combined to produce a domestic rights jurisprudence which, in its substance, in many ways closely resembles that emanating from the European Court of Human Rights….

    68. McDuff says:

      “Who do you think you are kidding Mr Hitler if you think old England’s done” .
      Played even now on repeats.
      England has publicised itself for over 300 years but it seems to me it is terrified of Scotland leaving the Union as it really would have to “stand alone”.

    69. frogesque says:

      England sits atop a 3 legged milking stool. If one of those legs breaks free then England goes flat on its are.

      Of course they will fight to keep the Union by any means they can. Going to take more than a dab of Gorila glue and a roll of Gaffa tape though.

    70. Stravaiger says:

      Jeremy Chunt giving us some great ammo on BBC1 right now. Some splendid comments about democracy that show him to be the lying two-faced Chunt that he is.

      Boris up next.

    71. Joe says:

      They say it as it is. Its people who think Scotland can actually be considered its own viable sovereign entity while in the Union and that the Union isnt really just an extension of its most populace nation that are kidding themselves.

    72. Abulhaq says:

      In Japanese the official name for the UKGBNI is EIKOKU ie England. Multiplied many times this is the stark Unionist reality. We should not beat ourselves up over this, it’s history. Lets just excise this parasite and move on.

    73. Stravaiger says:

      Chunt- “How can I be a foreign secretary who stands up for democratic principles in somewhere like Hong Kong if I’m not prepared to stand up for democratic principles at home in this, one of the oldest most robust democracies in the world. I’m someone who says we are known for being the country where people like me do what the people tell us to do…”

      This from a man who wishes to deny us a section 30, and indeed any sort of meaningful democracy at all.

      He also tried to say that the 2014 election was basically a referendum on the Brexit deal (which hadn’t even been finalised yet).


    74. Republicofscotland says:

      No one blinks an eye, on the Politics show as proposals to either threaten or bribe Ireland over the border issue are aired.

    75. Tam Fae Somewhere says:

      Johnson not answering too many of the questions at the moment. For a career politician he doesn’t appear to know much detail behind the headlines.

      Seriously, that man being PM is scary.

    76. Footsoldier says:

      A lot of Scots are guilty of referring to the Nederlands as Holland, pretty similar to calling the UK England.

    77. Allan Watson says:

      O/T A little light relief a singer from Edinburgh has written a song about Brexit / Boris

    78. Thomas Valentine says:

      I am sure most people reading here called the USSR Russia. As well as every one from there Russian even though only half the population was.

    79. Welsh Sion says:

      You, in Scotland, to coin a phrase are not alone in being narked in how England/English is elided into Britain/UK/British – we’ve had to endure that for many centuries and indeed legally under the ‘Acts of Union’ of Henry VIII which effectively annexed my country to England whereby the place would be in known in perpetuity for English statutory purposes as ‘England’.

      That particular provision was finally abolished by Westminster Statue in 1967 (WLA 1967), and the “Acts of Union” themselves by Westminster in December 1993 (WLA 1993).

      As for the coining of ‘(Great) Britain’ the term is obviouslu P-Celtic (Modern Welsh is ‘Prydain) and when these islands first appear in history (4th century BCE) the Greeks referred to them as ‘Pretaniki'(See Pytheas of Massilia).

      THe inhabitants spoke a Brythonic/British language (the ancestor of my mother tonue) and even up to the 17th or possibly 18th century, WElsh was known as ‘the British language’.

      Our experience of being the first historic Britons has played into the Welsh psyche over many centuries. They saw ‘their’ island being taken over by the barbarian, pagan Angles and Saxons, whilst they retained the idea of civilisation and later Romanisation. Hence, they called themselves ‘Britons’ and later ‘Cymry’ (‘the fellow country folk). It is significant the Anglo-Saxons called them ‘foreigners’ or ‘Romanised ones’ (Wealas > Welsh).

      Now, although the island of Britain was ultimately lost, the Welsh nurtured the idea that one day they would still be able to push the Anglo-Saxons back. Upon ‘union’ with England (under a Welshified king – Henry VIII whose father pushed the Welsh ownership myth of the island in order to win support for his coup at Bosworth), it seemed they had.

      Further, John Dee (< Sion Ddu = John the Black) Elizabeth I of England gave free rein to promoting a 'British' (a word of his invention, harking back to the glorious 'Welsh' part of his ancestors' history) and supported the likes of Drake, Raleigh et al as state sanctioned pirates to harry the Spanish and claim lands for 'Great Britain'. (The name 'great' also usefully doing the service of distinguishing it from 'Little Britain' (i.e. Brittany) and the 'greatness' of the Elizabethan State and her Empire. ('Making America Great Again' is not really an original idea.)

      We stand beside Scotland in her quest to be a free, independent nation and her citizens (not subjects) to be recognised in their own right and by their own rights as 'Scots'. We too, disclaim the idea of submitting to the 'British Minotaur' and this newish faux Britishness, which is nothing more than Englishness writ large.

      Yet we are called in our millions as cannon-fodder to uphold an idea for a flag we are not part of to fight for those we care not nor their state.

      I recall having a sweatshirt made for my lecturing commission in a Polish University the Polish equivalent of "I'm not English – I'm WELSH". I can assure you, given the love Poles have for their Eastern neighbour (even less than we have for ours, that message was highly appreciated by my students.

      Dros Gymru / For Scotland.

    80. stewartb says:

      Stravaiger @ 7:24 pm

      As you report from Hunt’s responses: “How can I be a foreign secretary who stands up for democratic principles in somewhere like Hong Kong if I’m not prepared to stand up for democratic principles at home in this, one of the oldest most robust democracies in the world. I’m someone who says we are known for being the country where people like me do what the people tell us to do…”

      But on his ‘democratic principles’ there is even more than denying a Section 30. It is clear that Hunt, and the Tories in general, are so concerned to get the UK out of the EU BEFORE a General Election because they are afraid of what such a democratic test of their BREXIT position – the position let’s remember of a minority government and one about to have a new PM in power with no real personal democratic mandate – might reveal.

      However Mr Hunt reassures us that we in Scotland will have our interests over Brexit taken into account through having Scottish Tories in his negotiating team! When did a majority in Scotland vote for any of this?

      Any silver lining? All grist to the mill for explaining to the EU and wider international community of the case for Scotland having their diplomatic recognition and support when we decide to dissolve the Union and regain our independence.

    81. katherine hamilton says:

      Mr Valentine
      Hello, how do you know what most people think? I hope you do. What do most people think about independence for Scotland?
      Yes? Again I hope so.
      Maybe you’re always right and always sure.

    82. mike cassidy says:

      Or as Blackadder said

      “If I should die, think only this of me.
      That I’ll be back to get you.”

    83. Petra says:

      Good find Andy and I reckon that we can presume that Angus McKenzie was Scottish too.

      @ Andy White says at 3:17 pm …. ”The dead included:

      DICK, JOHN ROWAN, Seaman, (no. LT/JX 224890), Royal Naval Patrol Service, Son of Thomas and Elizabeth Dick, of Girvan, Ayrshire; husband of Mary Ann Dick, of Girvan.

      DUNCAN, ANDREW WATT, Chief Engineman, (no. LT/X 412ET), Royal Naval Reserve (Patrol Service), Son of William and Isabella Duncan, of Rosehearty, Aberdeenshire; husband of Isabella Duncan, of Rosehearty.

      LEE, WILLIAM, Leading Seaman, (no. LT/X 18212A), Royal Naval Reserve (Patrol Service), Son of John and Margaret Lee, of Garrabost, Isle of Lewis.

      In addition, there are two further casualties simply classified as ‘British’: MCCRINDLE, ALEXANDER ALLAN, Seaman, (no. LT/JX 198997), MCKENZIE, ANGUS, Stoker, (no. LT/KX 114362).”

    84. Dr Jim says:

      Farmers in Scotland are now crying out for help because Scotch beef (the envy of the world) is under threat from the undercutting of its price by supermarkets selling *yes you guessed it British beef* the origin of which we know not where and as all of you will know is placed right next to Scotch beef always at the lower price to encourage the buyer, they do it with Pork and other products too, I’ve been warning of this for years now

      Morrisons again is the biggest culprit for this, in the land of Fish, Scotland, Morrisons sells fish that comes in a van from England, like Bass, Yorkshire brook trout,even their sea fish comes from Grimsby, and they’re extremely proud of it

      I bet they are

    85. Robert Kerr says:

      My namesake uncle Robert served in HMT Ayrshire another armed trawler, and died in Russia. HMT Ayrshire took part in PQ17 and after the “Convoy to Scatter” order managed to shepherd some merchantmen into the pack ice and then to Novaya Zemlya and eventually down to Archangelsk. He fell into the Northern Dvina River at a place called Ekonomiya and drowned. He came to the surface after nine days and the Royal Navy buried him in the White Sea.

      i eventually obtained the Arctic Service medal for him which was sent to his sister who was at that time 98 years of age. The powers that be would NOT give the medal to anyone who had already received a decoration from either the Russian or Canadian governments!

    86. twathater says:

      I was watching itv news while reading this post and these comments , and just to reinforce Stu’s piece there was an item on itv regarding the netball world cup with as usual how wonderful and exceptional the engerlish woman’s netball team are , there then followed a wee scrolling up section that highlighted that there had been an increase of 65% popularity for netball in Scotland with a wee Saltire flag at the top , it then went on to show that the popularity in Wales had increased by 28% with a wee Welsh dragon flag at the top , they then went on to show that popularity in Engerland had increased by 22% topped by a wee !!! ( UNION JACK ) are they ashamed of the real engerlish flag ???

    87. Cactus says:

      The British and Canadian Panamanian crew, you say:

      Sounded near enough like

      It’s Friday night ’19!

    88. Cactus says:

      Speaking of Canada…

      What have you become, England?

      Ye need tae huv a guid word wae yerselves

    89. robertknight says:

      Earliest memory of a sense of being ‘Scottish not British’ came from Clive Dunn’s warbling refrain of the Dad’s Army theme, which included “if you think old England’s done”.

      As a kid I couldn’t figure how Union Flag emblazoned triangles could belong to “old England” when they were clearly British.

      Thereafter it became clear that British and Britain were often interchangeable with English and England; to the exclusion of the other constituent parts of GB/UK.

      The sense of otherness with regard to being Scottish and living in Scotland was a natural consequence.

    90. kapelmeister says:

      The Scottish parliamentarians of Labour and the Lib Dems who helped promote the so called Vow in 2014, should, if they still favour the union, be willing to publicly attest that they believe this Vow delivered its promises.

      They could easily do this by posting footage on their social media. Holding a placard saying something like ‘The Vow delivered and Scotland is leaving the EU and must submit for now to being governed by Boris Johnson’.

      These Labour and Lib Dem people won’t do any such thing of
      course. Frauds tend to continue with their charades as long as they can. Even after it’s clear to everyone else that a charade is what it is.

    91. jfngw says:

      Is this any different from the Treaty of Union, bribe or threaten, nothing changes if you have a colonial mentality.

      Meanwhile the parliament of England at Westminster is still deporting Scottish citizens.

      It’s time for Scotland to stop this.

    92. David says:

      What a terrible article, written by a journalist from the USA, but edited by some BBC person so that it is all England, England, England. (As Conan pointed out.)
      Note that in quotes from fellow American, Joseph Schwarzer II, director of North Carolina’s Maritime Museum System, the correct use of Britain and British is very apparent.

      So it is NOT a failure on the part of the US educational system, either the author or the BBC editor chose to use ‘England’ deliberately, instead of ‘Britain’ throughout the article.

      Here’s a better article on the topic, which includes the fact that Canadians were among the crew of the Bedfordshire:

      P.S. I remember reading an article on these British war graves in the US some months ago on Yahoo. I don’t remember it being so full of references to England as this BBC one. 🙁

    93. kapelmeister says:


      So the brextremists’ plan about the Irish border is that they’ll go to Dublin and threaten an EU member state.

      ‘Who do you think you are kidding Monsieur Barnier if you think old England’s done?’.

      Old England’s undone.

    94. stewartb says:

      robertknight @ 10:01 pm

      You write: “Earliest memory of a sense of being ‘Scottish not British’ came from Clive Dunn’s warbling refrain of the Dad’s Army theme, which included “if you think old England’s done”.”

      Me too Robert. It brings back difficult memories even now of watching this on TV – week after week- sitting next to my father, a Scot and ex Royal Marine who had experienced a VERY, VERY hard war! Hurts still to think about it.

      (And I never spoke to him about it.)

    95. chicmac says:

      The U-boat crews perpetrated the most cowardly of aggressive acts skulking as they did out of sight beneath the waves, ready to scurry away after an attack. Right?

      But factually.

      The Germans lost very nearly 1000 U-Boats in the second World war a shipping loss which was twice the combined total of US and UK naval shipping from all theaters in WWII and with a very much less chance of survivability for the crews.

      German U-boat service had one of the highest fatality rates of any service anywhere.

    96. Wull says:

      Many very interesting posts above, including the two longish ones from Ian Mohr and Welsh Sion. Thank you very much to both of you and to all.

    97. galamcennalath says:

      In the 2011 census:

      62% identified themselves as ‘Scottish only’
      18% identified themselves as ‘Scottish’ and ‘British’
      8% identified themselves as ‘British only’

      The ‘British’, of whatever flavour, are a minority here. Probably a shrinking minority, I would guess.

    98. jk scobie says:

      Helana Brown at 3.59. We were inPoland last year and while on atour the guide said ..germans q here french q here english q here, when i shouted out where do us Scottish q, there was loud applause from the polish people who, then started to q beside us, so we are not alone

    99. jk scobie says:

      John Jones at 5.49 Anytime I am in Spain when someone says …ah you are english and I reply , no Scottish they then to go on and say , so sorry I understand, Holland never had any problems they can tell by the accent I am not english

    100. galamcennalath says:

      @me at 11:27pm

      I can’t find equivalent census data for England, they just don’t ask the question.

      However YouGov are quoted on the BBC in June as finding (taken from a graph) …

      16% identified themselves as ‘English only’
      66% identified themselves as ‘English’ and ‘British’
      7% identified themselves as ‘British only’

      … a quite different view on ‘Britishness’.

    101. kapelmeister says:

      Presumably Labour’s Jim Murphy is happy that his favourite think tank’s chief executive has advocated “bribes or threats” by the UK to the Republic of Ireland over the backstop.

      Murphy refused to leave his membership of the Henry Jackson Society council when he was doing his gloriously disastrous stint as Scottish Labour leader.

      Now Dr. Alan Mendoza of HJS openly states that he thinks the UK government is entitled to issue threats to the Republic.
      Mendoza says he meant economic and not military threats. Ah, how statesmanlike!

      Does Jim fundymundilly support Dr. Mendacious on this?

    102. galamcennalath says:

      England’s days of threatening anyone are almost over.

      Threaten Ireland, when the EU has Ireland’s back? It would be a joke it it wasn’t that some English Nationalists are serious.

      If Brexit isn’t reined in, it will be the equivalent of Thatcher’s deindustrialisation and the banking crisis combined. Maybe worse. England is in for its biggest shock since …. well a long time. Serious economic damage concurrent with a massive loss of international influence and prestige. It’s genuinely hard to think of a historical equivalent.

    103. Capella says:

      @ Wull 6.22 – great post. I was going to suggest on the previous thread that you submit it to Stu as a separate topic. It gets to the heart of the constitutional position and deserves greater discussion.

    104. mike cassidy says:

      Nice timing for the warning from the BBC director-general

      about the assault on truth.

    105. Footsoldier says:

      Visiting Canada around 15 years ago, I formed the impression from guides that Canadians had a thing about being in the shadow of the USA across the border, which I thought might make them more aware of the Scotland and England situation.

      I was disappointed because the British Royal family were frequently referred to as English by guides on tours. Arriving at Quebec City, we visited the Plains of Abraham and the English cannon used in the 1759 battle were pointed out to us by our guide. Apart from being referred to as an English battle, the “English” cannon were made at the Carron Iron Works, Falkirk.

      Says a lot about the Scottish Canadian connection.

    106. Capella says:

      @ Footsoldier – the Ministry of Truth is omnipresent. I hope you dented their armour.

    107. Dr Jim says:

      My history doesn’t go all the way back to the day some English politician said right guys we’re changing things and remember when you were all English well you’re now *British* so go out and tell everybody that’s the new Nationality, OK you can be English as well

      What about the Jocks the Taffies and the Bogtrotters they won’t like being called British? Well they can’t ever be English can they

    108. Bobp says:

      Dont know how the rev feels living in bath, but living down here in Dorset for oh, many many years now. (I’ve got fcuk all in common with a worker from Manchester, liverpool, or wherever in engerland). Went on a day trip today to lyme regis and axminster with my English wife and family and grandchildren. Met loads of lovely smashing people, weather fantastic. Brilliant time. Beautiful part of the English countryside. But inwardly felt, I’ve got nothing in common with these people. Felt like a stranger when I spoke with my accent . Is this the Brexit effect creeping in? Who knows. Anyroads I’m coming hame on Monday for a holiday. Must be why I’m on a high.

    109. Wull says:

      I never watch him, and did not do so tonight. The question that arises nevertheless becomes ever more clear to me: Is Boris Johnson really a triangulated clone of the Spice Girls?

      And if so, which ‘triangle’ has been cloned from?

      We have to begin by granting that something did not quite work out as planned in the cloning process, and he became ‘Peroxide Blonde’ rather than ‘Ginger’ Spice. Granted that this is one of the three parts of his triangulated origins – and that he does like (much too much) to ‘ginger things up’, being the politician ‘full of many stunts’ and ‘devoid of all content’ – which are the other two Spices in the combination that has made him to be the ‘mix and match’ Spice-Man that he now is?

      Is he, besides being ‘Peroxide Blondey Spice’ a mixture of ‘Sporty’ – ‘see my lovely bicycle’ – Spice and ‘Baby Spice’ … as in ‘I’m just a big spoiled baby’ (as his girlfriend so recently and vehemently told him he was) … Or – to put that last description in a less benign and more sinister light – as in ‘just you remember ‘Baby Doc’ [the erstwhile Haitian Dictator] when you make me your unelected (and all-powerful) PM …’ After all ‘I am the Doc who is going to bring healing and unity to this country by delivering the Brexit Baby, on time, come Hell or High Water. As for you guys – Do or DIE, Baby …’

      Or, perhaps more likely … Are the other two sides of the triangulation which Clone Boris is made from ‘Posh Spice’ – for ‘Posh’ he truly is – and … even more appositely … ‘Scary Spice’?

      As someone above rightly said (more or less), the prospect of this ignorant and uninformed, uncaring and work-shy, not-yet-grown-up and utterly self-centred individual, this Narcissist who seems to be completely devoid of any sense of collective or any other form of responsibility, the prospect of him becoming the dying UK’s PM IS SCARY … scary beyond all telling, especially when he is the leader of those who are determined NOt to let the failing UK die.

      He is not just a ‘Spice-Man’ but also – much more – a Spacey one. The kind of unbalanced ‘Spacey Man’ who could be, and could do, just about anything. Not just to get his own way – but also, such is his imbalance – by swaying unpredictably from one way to another, and still being determined to get whatever his way of the moment happens to be.

      The kind of spacey person who is simply not fit for public office, no matter how low you set the bar for judging such fitness.

      The fact that this Spiced-up nothing of a man can become the UK’s PM, someone who has given such consistent proof of his incompetence, only goes to show how politically bankrupt the UK has now become. Not that the Conservative Party’s alternative candidate is any better …

      So … Clown (Clone?) Boris, King (-in-waiting) of the West (wing of the) Minster Lunatic Asylum, you triangulated tiddlywink, who are you really? How did you come into existence in the first place? Which are the conflicting Spices that have gone into your make-up, and made you such a conflictual and obnoxious and potentially or actually dangerous person-a?

      How did you manage to get here, to this point? Who let you barge your way into our lives, and brought you to where you are now? And what do those behind you hope to gain from your elevation to the UK’s Premiership, despite all the evidence continually demonstrating your unfitness for that office?

      What are the real purposes of your unaccountable masters, those shadowy hidden figures who have attached themselves to you, who no doubt see themselves as the ones to pull your puppet-strings from behind the scenery? If you will let them …

      What are their real purposes, these master-minds of the coming turn-around disaster, which will spin completely out of (their) control? Where is all of this really heading? Are they so naive? Don’t they realise that they will never be able to control the monster they have created, the wild bear they have unleashed on the rest of us?

      If they don’t realise it, Boris, I am sure you do. Bears do more than smile and eat honey, after all … as you well know, Boris.

      As for your own illusions about yourself, Mr. Spacey, what makes you think your Spiced-up, Content-free, Lies-abounding mirror-and-mirage Political Persona will ever be of any use to anyone for anything, other than for simply making noise and mischief, and sowing destruction all around you?

      (With apologies to the Spice Girls, to whom no harm … It’s not their fault if someone stole some of their DNA, mixed it together in a novel way, and added some poison … to fabricate this new kind of Posh-and-Scary, Spiced-up-and-Blondey, Sporty-Baby Brit-Nat Political Bear, the likes of which the UK has never before experienced … and doesn’t know what it is letting itself in for.

      (Irrespective of which, the house is about to fall down anyway, and come apart at its seams, falling back into its separate pieces. That’ll make quite a mess, for quite a while, but ultimately – sooner or later – the outcome will be just fine: the mess won’t be so messy that we can’t mop it up and get on with the new reality that will, thankfully, be ours. The end-game is surely approaching, maybe even like an out-of-control juggernaut hurtling down a sharp incline … Independence, here we come …)

    110. twathater says:

      Watched bbc’s candy floss heids interviews of *unt and brump earlier , I mean REALLLLLLY are we going to be governed by one of these imbecilic spiv chancers , they haven’t a feckin clue

      Neil was dizzy with *unts continuous going round in circles and answering every question with the same answer , even when pulled up about it he just continued to spout the same pish ( Oh BTW did I mention I was an entrepreneur )

      Brump just waffled and harrumphed and continued talking over Neil ignoring the questions , I must admit it looked as though Neil was ready to strangle him ( I know how he felt ) how anyone with even half a brain could consider voting for these amoebas is beyond me .

      Wake up Scotland these cretins will destroy you and your children and grandchildren’s futures

      FFS Nicola get us away from these moronic arsewipes

    111. Wull says:

      Thanks, Capella, for your kind and encouraging comment at 12.08. I don’t actually know how to do what you suggest, in regard to contacting Rev. Stu. If he ever he did want to publish any of the ‘comments’ I make as an article (under the name Wull) he is more than welcome to do so. Anyone else who would like to do likewise, on this or any other pro-indy site, or whoever wants to copy and paste a comment or some of a comment of mine to a friend of his or hers, is also very welcome to do so.

      There is no ‘copyright’ on any of the stuff I write here!

      If any of it can be used positively for the independence cause, so much the better. To be honest, I doubt if Rev. Stu would want to publish any comment as a separate article after it has already been posted BTL (if that is the right abbreviation). It wouldn’t really serve any great purpose, since others who consult the site will already have been able to read it. But if he does, or if you, Capella, want to suggest it to him, well and good.

      And if any other pro-independence person wanted to use anything I write here, for instance on their blog or wherever, they should just go ahead and do so. The only condition would be that they use it positively, and attribute it to – well, obviously, to me, Wull!

    112. Sandy says:

      There’ll always be an England,

      Enjoy it while you can, those of you south of the border.

    113. John McLeod says:

      This is not directly relevant to the current thread, and runs the risk of a visit by a man with hammers. I just wanted to encourage all Wngs fans to read the consistenly excellent blog by Mark Frankland:

    114. Capella says:

      @ Wull – you can contact Stu using the email in the Contact tab in the header. I thought your long comment on sovereignty was very thought provoking and could do with more discussion. Everything BTL us quite ephemeral though. Once we move on it’s hard to continue with a topic.

    115. Breeks says:

      Don’t want to go all deep on you, but ever wonder why the US often refers to the UK as England? Why others, including us, do the same for Russia and the Soviet Union, or Holland and the Netherlands?

      Yes, on one level it’s a little ignorant, and betrays a lack of understanding.

      But the upside? The reference is superficial and shallow, and using the name of a country is a more simple building block than the construct of multiple building blocks comprising more than one country. England is simple. The UK has complexity. Russia is simple. The Soviet Union is complex. Holland is simple. The Netherlands is complex. (Hey! I didn’t say it was very complex, but even 2 building blocks is more complex than one.)

      For an American to refer to the UK as England is a reflection of a simplistic mind which doesn’t want to deal with the complexity of the UK’s multiple nation concept. And being an American, they come from a place where multiple states make up a country. It’s lazy, it’s sloppy, it lacks rigour, but I don’t believe there’s belligerence or malice in it.

      More sinister, and in its own way sadder and a little pathetic, is the BBC or English Establishment feeling so insecure about itself that it’s basking in the warm glow of exceptionalism and entitlement which isn’t really there. It’s just a shorthand use of language, not fawning admiration for England.

      Britain and British are more sophisticated, because “British” is the simple building block, whereas “Britain” feels like it comes with a manual you need to read. I think the “ish” in British is what lets it qualify as simple. It’s a verb describing something, whereas Britain is a noun defining something. But I don’t think anyone, bar a very small percentage, see Britain, Great Britain, or British as terms drawn from the geographical description of the British archipelago of islands, with “Great” Britain merely being the largest.

      Being European isn’t a nationality, nor is being British. But then we come to America, the exception which proves the rule. The Canadians are Americans too, but likely wouldn’t thank you for saying so. (And let’s not forget the other niggling question of who’s actual Nation America properly is).

      The bottom line is I’m pretty chilled about the UK being described as England. It doesn’t stoke a resentment in me. You talking about England? Fine. That’ll be none of my business then. If you’re talking about England but meaning me, then you’re just being rude and ignorant, and that’s still your problem rather than mine.

      I’m not concerned about the UK being described as England. I am however deeply concerned that in 109 days, you might no longer describe Scotland as in Europe. That very much does stoke a burning black fire resentment deep inside me, and I hope the Scottish Government are paying attention. 2020 is a four letter swear word.

    116. Capella says:

      The Ministry of Truth marches on, in spite of Tony Hall’s latest denouncing of “fake news”.

      A British historian belittles the Soviet battle of Kursk. The Russians (all of them) against “historians”.

      We’ve always been at war with Eurasia.

      Kursk WW2: Why Russia is still fighting world’s biggest tank battle –

    117. Capella says:

      @ Breeks. The Soviet Union broke up in 1991. Russia is still there, though with all the cold war rhetoric you’d think the USSR still existed.

      Simple minded people could just say “Britain”.

      Or instead of the US we could just refer to California. I think it’s the biggest state.

    118. Robert Louis says:

      From ‘The National’,

      So there we have it, final confirmation that the current SNP leadership has no plans for independence, other than to pathetically keep begging London for permission to hold a referendum. Angus McNeil, MP, had put forward the idea of using an election as mandate for independence, if section 30 is refused, but the SNP leadership have decided it cannot be debated at conference, and in doing so issued an incredibly insulting and negative statement too. They will ONLY use a section 30 – which we know will NOT be given.

      So, look, I’ve gone from being an avid SNP supporter for more than ten years, I was at the hydro cheering NS as she took over as leader, to finally leaving the SNP this year because it was becoming clear the current leader merely liked to talk about independence, rather than do it.

      My worst fears have now come true. It is freaking obvious that Westminster will continue to refuse a section 30, so we will never have a referendum, according to the SNP leader, and therefore we will never have independence.

      If you want to know what happens to a political party that no longer represents the people who voted for it, then look at the SNP. Want to know what a political leader who has forgotten the people who put her there, look at Nicola Sturgeon. The current leadership is now content to sit back, and do sweet f all to gain independence. Oh, occasionally, she’ll give a stirring talk about ‘it’s coming yet for a that’ and so on, and will talk tough about how ‘Westminster MUST’ give us a section 30′, but she knows it is bullish*t. Westminster and the future Prime Minister has made it crystal clear they are NOT giving a section 30, ever, period.

      So Nicola Sturgeon can carry on bleating pathetically about big bad Westminster not giving a section 30 until the end of time. It will make no difference.

      Maybe it is time for the SNP to debate another motion at conference, ‘getting rid of this pathetic current leader, and replacing her with somebody who has the ability and desire to tackle Westminster head-on.

      I have been thinking it for some time, but now we know for sure, we will NEVER get independence, with Nicola Sturgeon as leader of the SNP and First Minister. It seems her job is just too cosy, for her to risk it all. Independence is something the SNP talk about, and so it will be for another hundred years. Besides their is gender and stuff that she clearly thinks is more important, and, it seems, interesting to her personally.

      And to those on here who defend the current SNP leadership, do please set out exactly how independence is going to happen, if their is no section 30 and NS refuses to consider an electoral mandate. Magic???

      And that raises and important question. Just what is the point in electing a lot of SNP MP’s, if the current leader is not prepared to go for independence. You may as well vote Labour for all the good it would do.

      So you may as well all start embracing brexit and all that will follow, because the SNP have now made it clear, that when it happens, despite their rhetoric, they are going to do sweet f all to prevent it, or to seek independence. This is nothing short of an utter betrayal of Scotland.

      Link to the story in The National. You need to read to the end, past the nonsense bullish*t statement from ‘the SNP’ ,in order to find out what Angus and Chris think about this.

    119. Golfnut says:

      @ Wull

      The likes of Boris are the blame takers if and when the shit hits the fan, they are well rewarded for their apparent stupidity, e.g. Dugdale. Specially selected British mince.

      Maria F.

      Hi Maria, I left a wee response to your excellent comment on the last thread, cheers.

    120. Footsoldier says:

      Robert Louis 07:38

      What nonsense – away and start your own party.

      Anything other than doing it legally gives the other side strong ammunition to attack and there are other scenarios. Most political pundits thing there is a strong possibility of a GE and that could throw up opportunities when the Brexit Party and Labour are brought into the mix and SNP could hold balance of power. Plenty to play for on current strategy.

      As to conference debates, I shall need to check that out.

    121. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      Robert Louis at 7.38

      “They will ONLY use a section 30 – which we know will NOT be given.”

      How do you know that?
      Seriously, how do you know that?

      The naivety of some of our support is worrying. A referendum with a section 30 is the surest way to independence.
      It is also the constitutionally agreed route.
      It is also the one that will drive independence support to huge heights should Westminster attempt to deny it – so it is the one we have to demand and keep demanding.

      Are we to foolishly encourage our enemy to deny it? This is exactly what we do if we assume now defeat on it.

      Any wobble now hands the intitiative back to the enemy

      Logistically and politically the SNP has to pursue that course until they achieve that – or it is undemocratically and illegally refused.
      Why would the SNP now at this point offer the enemy any suggestion that they believe that is what they will do?

      We all know there are other options should this proper and appropriate one be blocked.

      It is presently our best weapon.

    122. Muscleguy says:

      Bob Mack is right, for a start what is England? Named for invading Angles who, with the invading Saxons were pushed west by Danes and other Scandinavians. ‘England’ is a polyglot, mixed race place from the start. Then came Francophone Vikings placing another strata on top of that mixed society, one we are still stuck with.

      In the wars with the French there were long Welsh people recruited. Especially once their specialist Longbow skills were recognised. But as with the Cricket team the ‘and Wales’ gets left off the official histories of ‘England’s’ victories.

      To the list of leaders getting it wrong we must included lionised Nelson ‘England expects every man to do his duty’ regardless if he be Welsh or Scottish or Irish or Manx even.

      I suspect this modern resurgence is the English getting themelves psychically comfortable with the pending loss of Scotland and Northern Ireland to the Union. With a Welsh First Minister musing about the prospect of it being just them and careless, arrogant, Nationalistic England and what Wales might have to then consider. Also with the rest of the Celtic nations Independent it makes Wales an outlier. We could copy the Scandics and mint a Celtic Council fostering economic and cultural links and forging aliances in international fora.

      England will not like that, they will see it as threatening. But we will have big, powerful friends. For centuries first English then British policy has been to prevent the Continent uniting against them. It was why they intervened on the continent so often. Why Marlborough fought in the War of the Austrian Succession. Why Napoleon was opposed. Why we were drawn into WWI and WWII. Brexit will undo all of that and split the Union meaning not just that the continent will be united against them but they will be ringed by EU states.

      I will suggest we should not copy Iceland and scrap our armed forces. We might need them. For a start I fully expect English fishing boats will try it on after Independence and things might come to sabre rattling to get them to stand down. Especially with Brexit Party cheerleaders comfortable with the murder of ‘foreign’ fishers.

    123. Willie says:

      Just the same old shit from the anglocentric English Broadcasting Company.

      England, England, England, centre of the universe, most powerful nation on Earth, and Empire of Empires, the big hurrah, the greatest, …….it just goes on and on.

      In truth however a declining country riven with acrimony and an economy relentlessly slipping down the world league tables.

    124. Willie says:

      Yes, and I’ve just read about the Brexit Party MEP Robert Rowland ( South East England ) who is calling on the Royal Navy to sink as they did with the Belgrano, any EU fishing boat who enters Britain’s 200 mile exclusion zone.

      With outright calls to murder from an elected politician one can see how the UK is headed towards an orgy of violence.

      Time we had the weaponry to protect ourselves from these murderous right wing bastards who would kill at the drop of a hat.

    125. Simon Curran says:

      Footsoldier@8.20. I’ve never really got the Dutch thing. They do incidentally have Holland on their football jerseys so they’re doing their best to confuse us!

    126. Sarah says:

      @Wull at 02.21 – how to contact Stu. Scroll up to the top of the Wings page, click on “Contact”!!!

    127. CameronB Brodie says:

      Breeks makes an important point about cultural perception, evil and malice. Apart from obvious extremists, few who support or supported the union are evil. They want the best for their family, friends and local community. The malice of forethought come from the political and media elite. Deciding whether this malice is due to simple ignorance or evil intent, or both, requires some understanding on the processes informing social cognition.

      The effect of culture on perception and cognition: a conceptual framework


      Researchers are increasingly recognizing the role of culture as a source of variation in many phenomena of central importance to consumer research. This review addresses a gap in cross-cultural consumer behavior literature by providing a review and conceptual analysis of the effects of culture on pre-behavioral processes (perception and cognition).

      The article highlights a series of important perceptual and cognitive differences across cultures and offers a new perspective of framing these differences among cultures – that of “culturally conditioned” perceptual and cognitive orientations. The article addresses several theoretical issues and suggests directions for future research as well as managerial implications.,%20B_Effect%20culture%20perception_Voyer_Effect%20culture%20perception_2014.pdf

    128. CameronB Brodie says:

      And a bit of social psychology.

      Understanding Social Groups

    129. Fitzy says:

      After Dunkirk J B Priestley bbc news broadcast of 5th June capitulated the mood of the country when he claimed “Dunkirk is another ENGLISH EPIC,it was so characteristically ENGLISH.This was from Robert Kershaws book no surrender.

    130. CameronB Brodie says:

      And a bit more social psychology. I hope folk have twigged to this all feeds in to an understanding of how our perception, as ‘situated-self’, is largely shaped by culture. This cultured-self will need certain skills in order to avoid inherent cultural bias, so as to impart impartial judgement. That’s why culturally, we hold judges in high regard, they are thought to be skilled in being impartial.

      Fortunately, some of us understand a bit about the neoropsychology of prejudice and stuff. 😉

      Affect, Behavior, and Cognition

    131. Derek Ritchie says:

      The guy who wrote the article is american.
      America don’t understand the difference between England and the uk.
      Americans are dumb.
      The bbc probably should have corrected him thoug.

    132. David says:

      Most of the stuff about the war is racialist anti English nonsense

    133. David says:

      Dave Dave Dave, someone from the League of Indy-Minded Daves & Davids, LIMDAD, should have loaned you a dictionary before you posted on here.

      HAL9000 – “I’m sorry, Dave” (4 sec – short and sweet)

      Cheech and Chong- “Dave’s not here” (1m30s)

    134. Benhope says:

      Can we have a campaign to raise volunteers to fight these dastardly Iranians? Only genuine Scottish cannon fodder should apply.

      Tallyho, over the top, Jocks first please !

    135. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      I had to check ‘cos even that sounded too BatShit Crazy, even in these Post Truth Brexit days @Willie saysat 12:16 pm

      And it is true.

      Zoomers who believe in 18th Century gunboat diplomacy while their flag ship aircraft carrier is seriously compromised with engineering faults and no planes!

    136. Simon Curran says:

      Anyone else watching Wimbledon and notice the Union Flag draped over the table at the All England Club where the trophies were standing.

    137. JLT says:

      You should read William Shirer’s magnus opus ‘The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich’. Each page literally drips with ‘England did this; England did that; Hitler sat and debated on what to do with England now that he had conquered France’. The only mention of Scotland is when Hess flew here, foolishly believing he could get the British government to change its mind and seek a peace deal.

      And yep …it’s not the only history book that believes England was the empire and that England was the only nation who stood alone against Hitler.

    138. Ian B says:

      You’re some guy Stu. When asked a question you don’t like is it normal procedure for you to block the individual concerned?

      I’ve been a supporter of Scottish Nationalism for +30 years and since 2014 have even supported some of your crowd funding efforts. I’m now challenging some of your opinions and you just run and hide?

      Not everybody who visits your site ‘adores’ you. You do a good job of scrutinising the mainstream media but for some reason don’t like it when you are placed under microscope.

    139. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “You’re some guy Stu. When asked a question you don’t like is it normal procedure for you to block the individual concerned?

      I’ve been a supporter of Scottish Nationalism for +30 years and since 2014 have even supported some of your crowd funding efforts. I’m now challenging some of your opinions and you just run and hide?

      Not everybody who visits your site ‘adores’ you. You do a good job of scrutinising the mainstream media but for some reason don’t like it when you are placed under microscope.”

      I don’t have the faintest idea what you’re on about. You show as having 0 posts, which means your first one has to be manually approved.

    140. alasdair smith says:

      It has now been changed. England has been sustituted for Britain or UK.

    141. alasdair smith says:

      The article has now been edited and references to England have been altered – heres the editors note. EDITOR’S NOTE: This article has been revised to clarify that the land was leased to Britain, not England, and that entire UK was involved in the war efforts.

    142. Nathan Smith says:

      It’s written by an American freelance travel writer…

    143. Gordon Forrest says:

      reminds me of the film was “The man who never was” (1956) the plot was to take a mans body chain an attache case with fake invasion plans in it and dump it off the coast of Portugal making it look like he was a courier who had been shot down knowing that the info on the papers would find their way into nazi hands thereby letting the nazis think the allied invasion would take place away from sicily The body was chosen some poor guy who died of flu but the war office needed the permission of the next of kin. In that scene where they asked the deceaseds father they said You can be assured that will have done his bit for England (or similar) to which his father replied “yes go ahead but he and I are both Scottish!!!” camera panned to two shamefaced military types styttering apologies
      I have often wondered about that scene Was this an early nationalist script writer or was it some right minded person trying to get the message across that the English were not the only ones in that war? some people tell me that the secret service actually carried this plan out but the man who never was was really Welsh

    144. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “It’s written by an American freelance travel writer…”

      I know. So what?

    145. DMcV says:

      Now partially corrected and with this wee addition;

      ‘EDITOR’S NOTE: This article has been revised to clarify that the land was leased to Britain, not England, and that entire UK was involved in the war efforts.’

      ‘Clarify’, eh?

    146. Alastair says:

      Even the UK Labour Deputy Leader John McDonell referred to the UK parliament as “The English Parliament” the other day whe he was interviewed about the possibility of IndyRef 2! The sheer ignorance of the English never fails to astound me. And he wants a pact with the SNP to get the ultimate Englishman PM dePiffle Johnson out of power. The sooner our First Minister and the SNP MPs in the “English Parliament” invoke the last couple of paragraphs of the 1320 Declaration of Arbroath the better. If one looks at how the Articles of Treaty of Union 1706 and the Scottish Act of Union 1707 have been flagrantly broken by the “English” (ie “UK”) parliament over the years it is logical that, under international law, the Treaty and the Acts are defunct so there is no reason why the Scottish Parliament has to seek permission to hold a lawful IndyRef 2. So, let’s get on with it. Oh, by the way it might be of interest that President de Gaulle conferred honourary French citizenship on all Scots born in Scotland so it might be worth getting in touch with the French Embassy consular department and getting a French Passport while we’re waiting for the breakup of the UK of GB & NI and getting a Scottish passport. Oh, another thing while I’m on the subject of passports; has anyone noticed how the coat of arms on the UK passport bears the English royal coat of arms even on ones issued in Scotland. Passports issued in Scotland or to Scots and Scottish residents shoulkd have the Scottish version of the royal coat of arms. Why isn’t the Scottish Govt or the Lord Lyon King of Arms doing anything about this insult to Scotland?

    Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.

    ↑ Top