Apologies

[Guest Bob the dog]

Now that the English Prime Minister has apologised for that dark period in UK history, ie slavery. do you think we should start a petition for an apology for that other dark period in our history, the Highland Clearances?

[Johnboy]

There are quite a few things that the "English" Prime Minister should apologise for - but I agree - that wouldn't be a bad place to start.... :018:

[caley100]

While we are at it, lets ask for an apology for all the so called witches that were burnt at the stake or drowned in error.

:017:

[Kingsmills]

Like many other darker aspects of our history, the clearances were largely inflicted on Scots by their fellow Scots.

[Charles Bannerman]

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.

[Johnboy]

Weren't all those who fought the Jacobites at Culloden, then instigated the Highland Clearances, there at the behest of King George 2nd and the Duke of Cumberland?

Useful link here :  http://www.highlanderweb.co.uk/culloden/jacobite.htm

[Charles Bannerman]

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.

[Kingsmills]

As a nation we have an outsized chip on our collective shoulders.

That, in my opinion, has a lot to do with being the junior partner in an unequal union for over three hundred years.

Once we at last have the confidence to break these shackles we can begin to emerge as a confident country.

[Charles Bannerman]

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

[Charles Bannerman]

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!

[Glebeict]

    Yikes !!! The upsurpers from Hanover sure did much better than the Stuarts???

      Think again  Please

[Action Man]

Unlike some, the Nationalists are looking forward not back. I look forward to the next " bloodless revolution " on the 3rd of May.  :004:

[Guest donmac298]

Charles, you've been brainwashed by the Sassenachs!

[Johnboy]

Sounds like your almost condoning the clearances, Charles.

Can you explain what you mean by the "Whingeing Jock Lobby"..? Who are they? Where are they?

Are you associating them with the SNP and the upsurge in support for independence?

[buckett]

Priapistic?? Is that a "proper" way of saying they were a bunch of pr!cks? Or did they breed a lot?

Can't get my head round this need for our modern-day politicians to "apologise" for historical events over which they have had no control.

Surely an apology from a person who is not in any way responsible for the event for which he is apologising, is completely worthless.

I hereby apologise for the genocide of the Tasmanian Aborigines - see what I mean!  :006:

[Johnboy]

I wondered about "priapistic" too, but I didn't want to appear stupid by questioning CB's use of the word.... :023:

I have to say however, it is a word that does not appear in any of my dictionaries..... :024:

[buckett]

I remember it from medical school!!  :003:

[Johnboy]

You mean you went out on  Friday nights and got absolutely priapistic....?

[buckett]

Well . . . . sort of. Usually in Singapore and not necessarily on Friday nights!

A priapism is a device for opening a certain type of curtains!

:015:

[Alex MacLeod]

We could debate the rights and wrongs of historical happenings till the coo's come home and still get knowhere. For example many's an orangeman believes the battle of the Boyne was English v Irish. When in fact it was English v Jacobites.

Many's a Scot believes there were kings and Queens of Scotland when in fact it was the clan chiefs who ruled the land. The royalty oversaw the parliament but were really puppets to the aforesaid clan chiefs.

Truth is, whats done is done and cannot be undone. The only way is forward and heres hoping the people of this dear land put their wee cross in the right box come 3rd May

[CaleyD]

What happens on 3rd May???

[Charles Bannerman]

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!!?"

[Johnboy]

Not quite right with your definition of "priapism"....

pri·a·pism (prī'ə-pĭz'əm)

n. Persistent, usually painful erection of the *****, especially as a consequence of disease and not related to sexual arousal.

Regards "Whingeing Jocks" I've never heard Alex Salmond whine on about "the Unglush" - What I have heard him say is that - as a race, the Scots are as every bit as capable and as well qualified to govern themselves, as the likes of the Norwegians, the Icelanders and the Irish, all of whom appear to cope very well with the demands of independence.

At least, as an independent nation, we are unlikely to be used as a guinea pig by the next conservative government for something as unjust or unfair as the poll tax was .... Nor will our armed forces ever be required to serve the Westminster government in another ill-conceived, unjust and illegal war. 

[Charles Bannerman]

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!

[Johnboy]

I don't think anyone is "hijacking" or "corrupting" historical events such as Culloden or the Highland Clearances for political purposes. The refreshing upsurge of support for the Nats has much more to do with recent events, such as the war in Iraq, the cash for peerages scandal,  the ineptitude of wee Jake McConnel and his toothless executive, who now have to suffer the indignity of allowing Messrs Blair & Brown to spearhead Scottish Labour's forthcoming election campaign.

I agree the smoking ban has swept through the pubs & clubs of Scotland like a breath of fresh air..!! It will be interesting to see how well it is received in Englandshire - but who cares..? That's their problem.....