Great Britain

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 4:58 pm

I'm very much proud of the tradition of British scholarship.

neoni · Post by **neoni** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 4:59 pm

it stops at 1997 because that was the biggest upheaval in the british electoral system since giving women the vote, but were i to continue it it wouldn't contradict what i said about scots only getting what they want when it suits the english. we voted against the tories for thirty years, and labour only got in when england decided to do so as well.

Stopper · Post by **Stopper** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 5:06 pm

Funnily enough, the Tories got more votes (but not seats) than Labour in England in the last election. So you could almost say that the English now have a government they don't want foisted on them because of the Scots and the Welsh.

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 5:09 pm

The English now have a government they don't want foisted on them because of the Scots and the Welsh.

gethine · Post by **gethine** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 5:10 pm

Stopper wrote:Funnily enough, the Tories got more votes (but not seats) than Labour in England in the last election. So you could almost say that the English now have a government they don't want foisted on them because of the Scots and the Welsh.

damn those minorities!

neoni · Post by **neoni** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 5:17 pm

Stopper wrote:Funnily enough, the Tories got more votes (but not seats) than Labour in England in the last election. So you could almost say that the English now have a government they don't want foisted on them because of the Scots and the Welsh.

the nature of fptp means that votes mean nothing if you don't win the seat, more than once a party has one a clear majority of votes, but don't form a government because of how they were spread out

neoni · Post by **neoni** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 5:20 pm

Guiscard wrote:The English now have a government they don't want foisted on them because of the Scots and the Welsh.

without counting it up carefully, you're dealing with perhaps five seats at most, which would still land labour in power, just in a coalition with the libdems

heavycola · Post by **heavycola** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 5:52 pm

Ruben Cassar wrote:
heavycola wrote:
Ruben Cassar wrote:I am not British however if I was British I would be damn proud of it.
WHY? It would be an accident of BIRTH, nothing more. I am happy and grateful to the cosmos and my parents that I live in a wealthy, advanced democracy where i can live in relative peace and prosperity, and I would fight to defend that if i had to. England is a beautiful country with an old and wonderful culture, but that had NOTHING TO DO WITH ME.

So WHY would you be proud? Surely one is proud of one's achievements, not accidents of birth. Patriotism is nothing more than a fulcrum with which political propagandists bend the masses this way and that with empty emotion and appeals to our worst nature.
Who said that it has anything to do with you? You can have your own personal achievements in life. However you should be proud with the achievements of your country and your ancestors.

The British have done a lot for mankind, and if I would be proud of that if I was British. The fact that you are ready to fight to defend your land and your culture shows that you are patriotic after all.

A country is just an area of land marked by physical or political boundaries. it does not achieve anything. Would i fight to defend this way of life against armed aggressorsd? Yes, of course. I love british culture as i love korean culture, french culture, new york culture - becasue of its uniqueness and what it has to say about being human. I will participate in the british political system becasue i care abotu my and others' quality of life, and teh effect we have on teh rest of the world's population. But as for beign British, i couldn't really give a toss. I would ebejust as happy being german, or italian, or american. Patriotism is bunk.

Ruben Cassar · Post by **Ruben Cassar** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 6:03 pm

heavycola wrote: Patriotism is bunk.

I guess everyone has the right to have an opinion about anything in life. This is yours and I accept it, but I doubt the majority of people living all over the world agree with you on this one.

Stopper · Post by **Stopper** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 6:55 pm

neoni wrote:
Guiscard wrote:The English now have a government they don't want foisted on them because of the Scots and the Welsh.
without counting it up carefully, you're dealing with perhaps five seats at most, which would still land labour in power, just in a coalition with the libdems

Well, Fussy, I did say almost.

Stopper · Post by **Stopper** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 6:57 pm

Ruben Cassar wrote:
heavycola wrote: Patriotism is bunk.
I guess everyone has the right to have an opinion about anything in life. This is yours and I accept it, but I doubt the majority of people living all over the world agree with you on this one.

You're probably correct, and that's to the world's detriment.

Ruben Cassar · Post by **Ruben Cassar** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 7:00 pm

Stopper wrote:
Ruben Cassar wrote:
heavycola wrote: Patriotism is bunk.
I guess everyone has the right to have an opinion about anything in life. This is yours and I accept it, but I doubt the majority of people living all over the world agree with you on this one.
You're probably correct, and that's to the world's detriment.

Not necessarily.

It is only to the world's detriment when it becomes fanatical and blown out of proportion. Some healthy patriotism never hurt anyone. For example wouldn't you be proud if your country won the Olympic games? That's patriotism as well.

Stopper · Post by **Stopper** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 7:14 pm

Ruben Cassar wrote:Not necessarily. It is only to the world's detriment when it becomes fanatical and blown out of proportion. Some healthy patriotism never hurt anyone. For example wouldn't you be proud if your country won the Olympic games? That's patriotism as well.

You can't keep nationalism in "proportion". Your second sentence there is something that American conservatives keep saying to themselves over and over again - jay has said something along those lines more than once - and the reason they do this is because they know there is something deeply wrong with the whole concept of nationalism. The fact of the matter is, once you start to split people up along national lines, they will prioritise people of their own nationality to a startling extent, and it can't easily be kept under control. We know the exact count of American and British dead in Iraq, but for some reason, not that of Iraqis. (Note also that definitions of who fits a nationality becomes a problem, too.)

Your own attitude toward Britain and the European Union just illustrates this. You keep saying that Europe needs to be a united bloc to survive in the world in the future, and if we're going to be realpolitik about this, you're right. But the fact is, only a minority of British people see themselves as British, and not only that, but most people in Europe don't seem much enamoured of the idea of a united Europe. Nationalism again gets in the way of what's sensible and right. It hardly seems sensible to encourage a sense of "patriotic pride" in Britain, when that is one of the very things that gets in the way of European unity.

/Serious mode switched off/

SO NER!

diddle · Post by **diddle** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 2:31 am

but we do have a reasonably stable government, considering....

Aradhus · Post by **Aradhus** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 3:08 am

Nationalism is a tool used for manipulation.

I'm not proud that I'm Scottish.

I am damn proud that I'm not English though.

My mother gets £30 from the governement for being my nephew's carer. If she lived in England she'd get about £300.

It does amuse when Englishmen describe themselves as being arrogant, because really, arrogance is a mask used to hide deficiencies and inadequacies.

Ruben Cassar · Post by **Ruben Cassar** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:29 am

Stopper wrote:
Ruben Cassar wrote:Not necessarily. It is only to the world's detriment when it becomes fanatical and blown out of proportion. Some healthy patriotism never hurt anyone. For example wouldn't you be proud if your country won the Olympic games? That's patriotism as well.
You can't keep nationalism in "proportion". Your second sentence there is something that American conservatives keep saying to themselves over and over again - jay has said something along those lines more than once - and the reason they do this is because they know there is something deeply wrong with the whole concept of nationalism. The fact of the matter is, once you start to split people up along national lines, they will prioritise people of their own nationality to a startling extent, and it can't easily be kept under control. We know the exact count of American and British dead in Iraq, but for some reason, not that of Iraqis. (Note also that definitions of who fits a nationality becomes a problem, too.)

Your own attitude toward Britain and the European Union just illustrates this. You keep saying that Europe needs to be a united bloc to survive in the world in the future, and if we're going to be realpolitik about this, you're right. But the fact is, only a minority of British people see themselves as British, and not only that, but most people in Europe don't seem much enamoured of the idea of a united Europe. Nationalism again gets in the way of what's sensible and right. It hardly seems sensible to encourage a sense of "patriotic pride" in Britain, when that is one of the very things that gets in the way of European unity.

/Serious mode switched off/

SO NER!

The European Union's motto is united in diversity. So yes, Europe needs to unite, but at the same time it strives to foster the cultural differences between each of its member states. In fact I think the EU had done a lot of positive things in this aspect. That way you can be patriotic towards your state and towards Europe. At least that's how I see it.

Also about your comment that most people are not enamoured of the idea of a united Europe, the problem the EU has is bureaucracy. It's just way too cumbersome and complicated and politicians are distant from the people. It needs to be simplified. Also the French and Dutch no votes to the EU constitution were more like a no vote to their national governments than to the EU per se.

Dariune · Post by **Dariune** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:39 am

You know, to me it sounds like the Scots are just being bitter. Yes England has oppressed the Scots a lot in the past. And yes im sure there are still things we are doing wrong.
But there are still things every country is doing wrong including Scotland.

And here is Scotland trying to get away from unity when europe needs to be united the most.

Honestly? i think Scotland should get over it and start thinking reasonably.

(this applies only to those Scots whome i have met and automatically hated me for being half English.)

btownmeggy · Post by **btownmeggy** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:50 am

Is this a real live meeting of the BNP?

Dariune · Post by **Dariune** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:03 am

Im not sure, i just get tired of people hating us because we are English. But then i get that double ended as i am Jewish as well so i get the Jew hatred as well.

Every race out there has done something wrong.

Infact, every individual has done something wrong.
I dont see why the bad things my country has done should reflect on me. And if it does, why cant the good things reflect on me?

diddle · Post by **diddle** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:37 pm

Dariune wrote:Im not sure, i just get tired of people hating us because we are English. But then i get that double ended as i am Jewish as well so i get the Jew hatred as well.

Every race out there has done something wrong.

Infact, every individual has done something wrong.
I dont see why the bad things my country has done should reflect on me. And if it does, why cant the good things reflect on me?

wow, meaningful words

i think basically though, you're talking about racial stereotypes, for example, the previously mentioned British arrogance, which doesn't even apply to all the members in my family (who are british). Although some of these stereotypes have been created by the race itself (for example, 'all pakistani's being terrorists' is one i hear at school, this is because of the recent terrorist bombings, and the idiocy of my classmates), I don't like to use stereotypes as i believe it is away of labelling people into groups, when we all should be in our own group. International individuality (ooh big words) is one of our human rights, but it doesn't refer at all to stereotyping people. I don't mind people addressing a group of british people, all individuals, as brits, but that also means i have to tolerate a group of jews being called jews. I know this is correct, but because of the past it seems wrong, almost racist, i mean i wouldn't feel comfortable calling a man from iraq and iraqi, because of what has happened in that country in the past. I'm still not 100% sure with calling black people black. It feels rude.

If any of my comments offended you i am extremely sorry.

neoni · Post by **neoni** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 3:07 pm

the bombings in pakistan, which i doubt you're referring to, weren't committed by pakistanis, so i don't see how you can say that they brought that on themselves.

diddle · Post by **diddle** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 3:19 pm

i know my history is a bit off, but i mean the more recent bombings, but i might be wrong, just look at the point i'm trying to make, not the accuracy (or lack of it)

DAZMCFC · Post by **DAZMCFC** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 3:21 pm

to neoni. you said that english people get offended when scottish people do not want england to win.BOLLOCKS i am english and i do not want england to win ever (unless they play ireland, not the north). all my mates in work and the pub know i support scotland and it is fine with them.

it is like when some united fans say they want city to win, because their from manchester. i never want united to win.

english could not give a shit if scottish people support england or not. i will tell you this though i do support the british in the olympics and any other sport we play together.

neoni · Post by **neoni** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 3:32 pm

DAZMCFC wrote:to neoni. you said that english people get offended when scottish people do not want england to win.BOLLOCKS i am english and i do not want england to win ever (unless they play ireland, not the north). all my mates in work and the pub know i support scotland and it is fine with them.

it is like when some united fans say they want city to win, because their from manchester. i never want united to win.

english could not give a shit if scottish people support england or not. i will tell you this though i do support the british in the olympics and any other sport we play together.

are you joking? gordon brown was accused of being RACIST for not supporting england in the world cup, a cardinal released a report calling it a SIN for scots to not support england. if you really want, i'll find sources for this. i'm not surprised it wasn't on english news, but it's been all over the papers/radio/tv here

obviously it isn't the people, and certainly not all the people, but the government is doing it, and rightly or wrongly the actions of a government will be blurred with that of the people - see the stereotypes of america americans.

by the way, dariune, i lived in london for years and had a lot of jewish friends so i'm familiar with what you get, but believe me i got no end of racism from the minute i got there to the minute i left. i also have ginger hair and freckles (typical scot blah blah blah) so people could tell, but it does work both ways.

Stopper · Post by **Stopper** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 3:33 pm

Ruben Cassar wrote:The European Union's motto is united in diversity. So yes, Europe needs to unite, but at the same time it strives to foster the cultural differences between each of its member states. In fact I think the EU had done a lot of positive things in this aspect. That way you can be patriotic towards your state and towards Europe. At least that's how I see it.

Also about your comment that most people are not enamoured of the idea of a united Europe, the problem the EU has is bureaucracy. It's just way too cumbersome and complicated and politicians are distant from the people. It needs to be simplified. Also the French and Dutch no votes to the EU constitution were more like a no vote to their national governments than to the EU per se.

If we're going to talk about the EU in particular, surely one of the fundamental problems has to be people's attachment to their own nation-states. The activities of the Euro Parliament, EC, and CoJ are certainly poorly reported in Britain, and this is a big factor making those institutions distant from the people, in a way that Westminster isn't. I'm willing to bet it's like that (to a greater or lesser extent) all over Europe. People aren't interested in European news, and even when they are, they see the issues in terms of narrow national self-interest.

This lack of proper reporting may be one reason, incidentally, that allows the EU institutions to become so bloated (and possibly corrupt) - there is also a lack of accountability to the electorates.

One other big factor blocking further integration, BTW, has to be the multitude of languages spoken in the EU [and I'm aware of the EU's commitment to cultural diversity - 23 main official languages, according to Wikipedia.] If only they would all speak English!

Great Britain

Are you proud to be British? (Just say Yes)