Charles Bannerman

Yngwie.... where was the third one?!

No problem Donmac! Takes Mantis to sort it out, eh? Churchill gives an intriguing account of the post Pearl Harbour hours in Volume 3 of his Second World War where, after news got through of the attack, he admits he "slept the sleep of the saved and the thankful". Britain also tried to warn the Soviet Union of the impending German attack in June 1941, which they knew about from Enigma decrypts but Stalin ignored the warning. No doubt, though, these two events saved our backsides in the war.

Ah! Mantis is obviously far better at interpretation than either Donmac or I. I now, although I hadn't until "Sir's" intervention, follow that Donmac understood my reference to "hot air" to mean him, Donmac. However what I did indeed mean was that it was Churchill, Eden...... Major, Blair who collectively generated it.

Well you've done a whole lot better than I have!

I bumped into Jimmy (46) on Saturday night and he challenged me to work out within three guesses which team hed been playing for that afternoon or buy him a drink. His was a vodka. We had a great blether about it and I've done a piece for this week's Highland News. Without revealing too much, Jimmy had the misfortune of having his head sh@t on by a Peterhead seagull but I suppose compared with some of the abuse he's had in his time from the Jail End, that's pretty tame.

Donmac... that's scared me when I think back and realise that I was born when Winston Churchill was PM (his SECOND ministry I'd hasten to add) and I've seen NINE Prime Ministers come and go (well eight if you allow for the fact that Churchill had already "came" and Blair has not yet "went" as we say in football.) That's a lot of hot air.

For God's sake TM4TJ... be careful what you say! You'll have Bonzo , Midge55 and Clacher on here celebrating because they think you're on about Charlie Christie! Just to clarify, TM4TJ is referring to the Coronation Street Murder Trial where Old Face Ache Tracey Barlow was tonight found GUILTY of the murder of Charlie Stubbs the demon joiner.

Apolitcal and also to a very large extent antipolitical. I really have time for very few of them. Yes, I think Salmond is supercilious and self satisfied and this emerged above because I was examining the issue of historical misinformation in the context of nationalism. But there are plenty others as well... for instance we need look no further than one Peter Peacock who, at a time when the best way to get to the top in Highland Council was to be an Independent, was a "lifelong" Independent. Then, when the first elections come along for the Scottish Parliament, does Public Spirited Pete stand as an Independent? Behave yourself! New Labour (you know... the ones that used to be Socialists) becomes the only party Pete ever wanted to be a member of. And Pete does very well out of it too. Standing as part of the Labour "list", he becomes Education Minister without any voter ever having put an X directly against his name as a (New?) Labour candidate. And when he gets that job, he's pretty quick to criticise the lack of PE in Primary Schools. Now, who was Convener/ Vice Convener of Highland Regional Council in the mid 90s when they slashed Primary PE? But whatever the outcome of this election for what Billy Connelly calls "the wee pretendy Parliament" (it was known in Westminster Labour circles as "The White Heather Club") I will REALLY miss that outstanding cabaret which was the Scottish Socialist Party! Next week we feature the Greens, the Tories and those "Bloody Nice Blokes" otherwise known as the Liberal Democrats....

Auld Sneck wham ne'er a town surpasses Ten Men against Eleven Lassies! If mystified, consult second verse of Tam O'Shanter.

ICT Chris and Suspicious Mind have already hinted at this but perhaps I could make the point that Charlie got a lot of criticism from fans on this site for his substitutions in the Celtic cup tie. Maybe he should now therefore get a bit of credit for his response to the sending off with the Paatelainen - McCaffrey substitution. I wasn't at the game (I was watching Clach beat Fourass 2-1 for their first league win since December) but by all accounts this change appears to have been central to confronting Rangers at Ibrox with 10 men for 76 minutes and pulling back a goal.

buckett.... do you not mean a device for supporting curtains!?

A book I've been reading about the towns and cities of Scotland says in its Inverness section that there were failed talks about a merger among Clach, Thistle and Caley in 1937. Is this familiar to anyone on this forum, even though Mantis was probably the only one who was around at the time? I am aware that the merger issue raised its head from time to time over a period of several decades, for instance Clach activated the concept in the mid 80s as they began to slip towards their 1990 crisis. In general, I believe that enthusiasm for a merger tends to thrive at periods of weakness, which is why I would argue that 1993 when Thistle and Caley were both on their way down after successful spells was a prime time to have one. In the case of 1937, this wasn't long after Citadel went to the wall (1934 I think) so it may have been a rocky time for football in Inverness as a whole, or there may be other reasons. Does this ring a bell with anything anybody has read or heard? ADDED MODIFICATION - come to think of it, looking at some of the other dates in the Inverness section, there may be a little leeway for flexibility here. For instance the book says that Charleston Academy was in place "by 1988" (it opened in 1978) and the original Caledonian Stadium was completed "by 2000" (1996). There are one or two other dodgy looking dates which are not relevant here, so 1937 may need to be taken slightly flexibly.

Certainly that's the tight medical definition, but the word is also used more loosely to describe gents with abnormally active trouser departments... such as the Stuarts. My interest in this wider topic concerns the hijacking and corruption of history for political purposes. I have no interest in the politics themselves - I leave that to the self interested within society. However I would still remark that it was rather nice in Scotland to be used as a guineapig for a broader UK wide Smoking ban!

Priapism... a tendency among certain males to retain a permanent or very frequent state of sexual arousal. This brings me straight to Glebeict's question about the relative values of the Stuarts. Priapism and related activites really were just about all they were any good at - especially Charles II and James II. A large chunk of the current aristocracy are desendants of the illegitimate issue of Charlie the Lad. (Well OK, some credit to him for setting up bodies like the Royal Society in between extra marital liaisons.) Apart from that the Stuarts really didn't have a terribly good track record. James II behaved so badly that he got chucked out after just over 3 years in the job. His dad Charles I was even worse. He managed to start a civil war and got his head chopped off for his trouble (as did his Granny Mary QoS). A number of the five James before her also met sticky ends (including the poor sod who got blown up by an exploding cannon but that wasn't his fault.) But conspicuously, James IV thought he could take on England Reserves at Flodden in 1513 while the England First Team (in these days probably much more effective than under Steve McClaren) were away to France. Scotland got gubbed and James got the bullet along with many of the Scottish aristocracy (no great loss there one might suggest.) BP Charlie of course ended his days in charge of nothing more important than a brandy bottle. However, although the Stuarts were a disaster, the Hanoverians, from whom the current crew are descended, weren't much better. Frankly I'd much prefer to have none of them. To be quite straight, I don't really have a much better perception of many politicians of all parties either. As for the "Whingeing Jock Lobby", what I mean by that is the section of Scottish society which seems to make a way of life out of moaning about how badly off and how miserably treated they claim the Scots to be. This probably has its origins in the over romanticised spin put on the failure of the 45 and on the Highland Clearances. In turn this has been siezed upon and exploited by nationalism which of course sees perceived disaffection with life in general and the English in particular as a votewinner. How often, for instance, (and I say this as a supporter of no political party - I am apolitical) do we hear the wee self satisfied supercilious Salmond fellow whine on about "The Unglush!!?"

I've now managed to read the link which Johnboy provided and it's a complete historical disaster based on the convenient myth which the Whingeing Jock wing of the nationalist movement would like to promote rather than on much historical fact. There are two monumental errors in the second paragraph alone. First there is the claim that the Stuarts were exiled to France as a result of the Act of Union of 1707. Strange, given that it was in December 1688 - alomst 20 years earlier - that James II, having behaved very badly, cleared off to France in the face of King Billy's advancing army of Rangers supporters which had just come over to Torbay from Holland. Then two sentences later the guy also tries to blame the 1707 Act of Union for the arrival of the House of Hanover whereas this was provided for by the Act of Settlement of 1701. It was then extended to Scotland by the Act of Union which as a result did us a favour by getting rid of those priapistic, drink sodden absolute monarchists the Stuarts and at least replaced them by a bunch who were perhaps slightly less objectionable. There's more, but in summary the main message from this propagandist tract is that maybe after all history IS very badly taught in Scotland. This guy certainly doesn't have much of a clue and this is before he even tries to put his "poor downtrodden Scots, shafted by the English" spin on it. I could imagine the nationalists will be quite delighted that Scots are so clueless about their own history, if it allows rubbish like this to be written and maybe even believed!

"Junior partner in an unequal union"... a phrase like that could only be written by someone called "Kingsmills"!

Let's put it this way... the Jacobite army was there to a far greater extent at the insitgation of the Clan Chiefs who decided to support that cause than the largely professional Government army was there at the instigation of George II etc. Like it or not, the Clan system was already in decline before the Jacobite rebellion, the failure of which simply hastened its demise. When the clan system became redundant the landowners basically decided to make money out of sheep so they threw the people out. I sometimes despair at the over romanticised tosh which, encouraged by the Whingeing Jock lobby, is spoken about Culloden and its aftermath. As I've just said on a different thread, the 45 was the Stuarts' FIFTH attempt since 1689 at reversing the Glorious Bloodless Revolution of 1688. It also happened at a time when Britain was heavily engaged on the continent in the War of the Austrian succession. So the Government quite simply lost patience and this time sent the heavies north to give the natives a damned good kicking. Not very nice but from their point of view it worked.

Maybe Bob the Dog should also ask the "Scottish Prime Minister", aka Wee Jack, to apologise as well. Scotland was up to its armpits in the slave trade. How come Highland history appears to have been so badly taught? Why do so many people blame everything on the English when, as Kingsmills so rightly states, most of the problems were inflicted by fellow Scots such as one Patrick Sellar. So Highlanders beware the rantings of the jumped up Weegie Cooncillors at Holyrood.

Weestie - I think you should do a bit of reading on the Jacobite movement to find out that the event you're discussing definitely wasn't Scotland versus England. It's tended to be hijacked as such by Nationalism and those of the Whingeing Jock persuasion because they would like to portray the Scots as poor downtrodden sods. As a result Jacobitism and Culloden tend to be misrepresented as some Scotland versus England thing. I'll say it again. There were huge numbers of Scots in the armies opposing the Jacobites... including Highlanders. For instance the Clan Campbell were wholeheartedly Hanoverian and fought for the Government. Lots of Scots had no time for the Jacobites and fought them tooth and nail and there were also some English Jacobites. Protestant versus Catholic is a much more accurate definition but still doesn't fully describe the situation. So how about this alternative take on the Battle of Culloden? By 1746 the Jacobites were into their fifth attempt since 1689 to restore the Stuarts and many Highland clans kept supporting these ventures. The British Government was seriously embroiled on the continent in the War of the Austrian Succession and didn't need this hassle at home. So what they decided to do was to come up North and give the Highlanders a **** good kicking to solve this problem once and for all. And it worked. Much of that kicking was administered to Highlanders by Lowland Scots, of whom up here we should perhaps be equally wary. Not nice, but that's the way human nature works. If you want a battle which is genuinely Scotland versus England, the last real one was probably Flodden in 1513 when Scotland travelled South to meet England Reserves and got a right doing...a sort of 9-3 job. (The England First Team were away to France at that time.)

The Sun did this one very well last Friday. The headline was "Last odours" and beside the story was an inset entitled "Stinks are on the house" listing the following offerings:- Dry Fartini Hum and Coke Alcoplops Champong Smella Fartois Drampooie Scotch Whiffky Boakfast Parp Lager Stink Gin. Nobody does these stories like you Cerebral Sun.

Scotty.... from the pics I saw in the Sun and the NOTW, it looked rather more like he fell on his @**e but in principle, yes. Looks like "Heir's" younger brother "Spare" is going just the same way as his Great Auntie Margaret did under similar circumstances.

OK FW... let's break it up into a few simpler stages. 1) One lot at Culloden was as bad as the other. I'd have neither. 2) Being a Royal depends on who your parents were. The job gets passed down. 3) The Royals are notorious for sh**ging around. They've done it big time since time began. 4) So they haven't really got a clue who their parents/ ancestors were. 5) So their case for their existence falls flat on its face.

You mean you want me to choose between a Polish - Italian drunk and a bunch of German imports? Suspect I'd go for the "plague on both your houses" line and opt for a Republic. The concept of Royalty is pretty synthetic anyway since their perpetuation relies on the hereditary principle in an environment where, since time began, nobody in the Royals is really sure who has been bedding whom. In other words, it's perfectly possible that they (and that of course includes the present lot) are quite simply - like you and me - the progeny of stable boys, footmen and butlers. You'd certainly be entitled to come to that conclusion if you look at photos in the Sun and the News of the World of young Harry staggering about the place.

Please let's not fall into the common trap of assuming that the Battle of Culloden was a Scotland - England game. There were large numbers of Scots on both sides as well as not a few English Jacobites. "Old Firm" is a bit closer to the truth but still not bang on the mark. Complicated phenomenon, Jacobitism, and often hijacked by those of the "whingeing Jock" persuasion who like to have a moan about how awful the English have been.

I thought a Clapometer was a device for diagnosing gonorrhoea. I have to say I am hugely disappointed in the extent to which IHE has been drawn in by the English legal system.... libel, County Court, Crown Court.... Presumably this is a result of regular experience down Chorley way. And finally... what happened to the line that was meant to be drawn under this? I can only commend the final words of TM4TJ.