Scottish Devolution / British Federalism - Printable Version
+- Immortal Technique: Unofficial Forum (http://www.immortaltechnique.co.uk)
+-- Forum: General Discussion (/Forum-General-Discussion)
+--- Forum: Politics/World Issues (/Forum-Politics-World-Issues)
+--- Thread: Scottish Devolution / British Federalism (/Thread-Scottish-Devolution-British-Federalism)
RE: Scottish Devolution / British Federalism - ClichéGuevara - 10-24-2011 07:33 AM
Never said I was half English. Not caring what nationality I am bares no reflection to me being colonised (LOL). If anything, being colonised would make me a Union Flag flying, God Save the Queen singing Scot. Even then that's not a colonised Scot.
RE: Scottish Devolution / British Federalism - 1871 - 10-24-2011 08:10 AM
Quote:Sean ; I'm Scottish and English, so you know, doesn't bother me
You mean that you are one of those shape shifting reptilians?
RE: Scottish Devolution / British Federalism - shakur420 - 10-24-2011 12:59 PM
I'm gonna try and make threads about culture and globalization. If you wanna make it easy for me, chop your posts up, separate them from the Scottish thing, copy them into new posts so we can split those posts into a new thread.
...and please, keep dropping the history stuff about Scotland/England.
RE: Scottish Devolution / British Federalism - 1871 - 10-24-2011 01:35 PM
This is one of the earliest British texts, if not the earliest which chronicles events when the Romans left Britain. It requires close reading. Some modern 'scholars' cant get past their antipathy towards the religious commentary in order to understand the history.
Gildas lived in the area between the two walls. He was a monk and had many brothers (who were not monks).
When you read this you will be going back some 1,500 years ago to occupy that time.
Good to surrender to the text initially and occupy that time. Further critical reading can be revisited and complimented with the Vortigern studies site. It is an enigma to historians and so there are lengthy discussions re- various archeological evidence and movement of refugees (to Breton and Britanny)
Gildas was born in Strathclyde or Alt Clut http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt_Clut as it was then known but did not consider himself a Scot.
RE: Scottish Devolution / British Federalism - shakur420 - 10-24-2011 01:50 PM
That's what I'm talkin about, thank you man.
RE: Scottish Devolution / British Federalism - 1871 - 10-24-2011 01:54 PM
u r welcome.
RE: Scottish Devolution / British Federalism - Fuzzly Bear - 10-24-2011 02:31 PM
It'd be nice to hear some more on devolution and federalism even if you don't care for nationalist ideals. As it stands there are many, many people who want greater autonomy, who obviously don't identify with England.
RE: Scottish Devolution / British Federalism - shakur420 - 10-24-2011 05:22 PM
^And how that increased autonomy would likely affect things.
Ok, that piece was a tough read. Only bothered with the first page, and pretty much ignored the preface - skimmed through that pretty quickly - because it looks like he's going to move on to the period after the Romans, when Vortigan or whatever his name is, kinda comes around. Plus, the nationalist skew is a little much, but I guess you can't expect much else from old sources, right? I did like how he painted the picture of Roman retreat more as a strategic decision on their part to better secure other parts of the Empire. That seems more consistent with most accounts I've heard. Thanks for the recommendation man.
What about before, like when the Romans first came, it was all like tribes and shit, right? "Britain" didn't really exist as a nation, right? lol, something I really didn't understand till a few months back. Rome was the real modern standard of Empire, it seems. So where do all these people come from, the Scottish, Welsh and English? Why would some tribes on the island be more associated with eachother, like is there really much ethnic difference? Or is it because of the introduction of Germanic people, Saxons and shit that changed some of these ethnicities? See, I don't even know who the "Saxons" are, like what the fuck is the correlation to "Anglo-Saxon"? And like, Ireland is clearly a matter if imperialist expansion through invasion, expropriation and absorption - it's on a different island - but what about the Scotts and Welsh? How were things like before the Romans? I'm just trying to learn in that way, lol, plus, after the Romans leave, my interest kinda goes with them. But before and when they showed up, I'm interested in that.
Like I said, there's things that interest me, there's things that don't, either way I don't care to learn about something because it's your culture, I don't care to sport a flag because it has sentimental value to you, it's irrelevant to me. But before I go in about that here - I'll spit on your notion that I should care about the culture of my parents' country in a next thread - you got anything I could read about the pre-Roman and Roman period?
RE: Scottish Devolution / British Federalism - 1871 - 10-26-2011 06:49 PM
Lolllll - hilarious. I am going to write to your mother Shakur about your disrespect.
You are going to be in deep shit now you insolent pup.
Three invasions of Britain:
Anglo Saxons (English)
Normans (northern French) 1066
btw In the Gildas account Ambrosius was Romano British. The document is worth perservering with. The Romans never succeeded in conquering Scotland. Initially the Scots just retreated into the Highlands. The Romans waited for the harvest then burnt their stores forcing them into a fight. Accounts i have read were interesting is: that the Romans couldn't stand the cold - and note Gildas comments about the Scots lol - is that you Hamish?
Why should the Scots want 'devolution' and not independence? Why should Scots have the right to vote on issues which affect the English? Why, if they have their own Parliament should they not fund it themselves.
RE: Scottish Devolution / British Federalism - shakur420 - 10-26-2011 08:19 PM
lol, I laughed out loud, literally when I read that about how they care more about growing their beards than covering their balls up or whatever he said. People were looking at me funny on the subway. HAHA
Ok, now I've heard that the Romans just didn't bother expanding to the north, not that they couldn't. Though they did retreat back to Hydrian's wall or something for bit? Something like that, but that was more because they weren't doing anything with the land or something? I don't know, what have you read?
p.s. I'll give you my mom's Facebook, don't think she checks it but whatever. She'll just laugh. I've been like that since I was young. I'm like the only brown person in TO - born here or immigrant, doesn't matter - that refuses to watch Indian movies, listen to Indian music or eat 99% of Indian food. lol, closest I get is watching Russell Peters.
RE: Scottish Devolution / British Federalism - 1871 - 10-27-2011 10:03 AM
This seems a fairly typical comment from Sean who is Scots when it suits him. First all the presumption re my nationality right? Wrong. Secondly that Scotlands indepence only affects the Scots - and not every other nation, location and individual within the by now defunct Union. Never mind that the Scots are funded by the tax payers in England - that this funding gives them disproportionately more rights than the working classinfact of any nationality in England, or that Scots MP's vote on English matters or that the English working class -of every ethnicity - disproportionately less rights than the Scots within the Unionist set up - as long as the Scots Parliament is funded by that economic exploitation.
Btw Sean - don't know where you are coming from on your Scots/English background but if both your parents are Scots and you grew up in England that makes you a Scot born in England. If you came to England to work then you are taking advantage of the better economic situation in England. Don't believe however that those born and bred in England should accept less rights in education and health care because you seem to think its ok to maintain a system which disproportionately favours Scotland. The Scots should take Irelands lead and stand on their own two feet - there's always the EU you can go to get help from.lol.
(10-24-2011 07:33 AM)Sean Wrote: Never said I was half English. Not caring what nationality I am bares no reflection to me being colonised (LOL). If anything, being colonised would make me a Union Flag flying, God Save the Queen singing Scot. Even then that's not a colonised Scot.
The colonised Scot reference is in relation to the fact that the language you speak is English (which came about by colonial occupation), the fact that your country is not independent and swears its alliegance to an English monarch. Sidestepping the issue by saying that you support the Union you just don't wave the flag is disengenuous. You maintain that you don't support the Umion ('I don't believe in nationalism') yet you argue against independence. A total contradiction. If you were consistent you wouldn't give a fuck either way. Infact your being a Scot wouldn't matter at all because, according to your own definition you do not recognise your own nationality !
Same with the thumbs up pseudo rev-left boys who like to think of themselves as socialist/anarchists but support an idea of Britishness that dates from the Anglo ascendancy that determined the act of Union. They will say that self determination for Celtic groups doesn't matter because 'we are all British' (read united kingdom status quo preservation) 'nationality doesn't matter' etc,etc, while the UNIONIST troops of their country occupy other countries. Any attempt to dismantle this (Scots independence would be an end to Trident and a disaffiliation from the British Armed forces) and straight away they start to whinge about how that is right wing 'nationalism'.
What is most telling, though not surprising, is how in your 'Scots are too stupid to know better' rhetoric you have not come up with one single cogent argument against independence.
If there is one Union there should be one Government so everyone has the same equal rights. If there are seperate Parliaments then their own citizens should fund those Parliaments. If there are seperate Parliaments for each of those countries then they should stand on their own two feet and be independent. To argue for the exploitation of others because it maintains a system favoured by the monarchy and gives a nation more 'devolved' priviledges evolves only out of the furtherance of inequality.
Shakur I am typing up a thread about Caesar and Rome at the moment. There were some 36 tribes. There was one land mass of different tribes but no seperate nation states. Celtic alliances were throughout Europe and there was trade with the Middle East - in tin, gold and copper - before Rome. Rome established an imperial class system. There was perhaps a warrior class among the Celts but the Roman and Norman legacy of the class system was for more emphasised. Intact if you study the history (re the historical materialism of Engels,Marx of the study of the systems we inherited) its interesting the extent of Romes legacy in the institutions we have today.
RE: Scottish Devolution / British Federalism - ClichéGuevara - 10-27-2011 02:12 PM
I am whatever I want to be whenever it suits me. Regardless of what you really think about it.