It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


A lesson on Britian for AMERICANS

page: 15
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 05:46 PM

Originally posted by itchy_tartan_blanket
How can Edinburgh originally be an English city if England didn't exist prior to 927AD and Edinburgh had been around for centuries before then?
The Northumbrian kingdom had Edinburgh within its borders, not "England". Check your history.

Check yours. The city was founded by Anglo-Saxons, the precursors of and the generally accepted bunch of people known as.... ENGLISH.

Originally posted by itchy_tartan_blanket
The Scots attacked England due to the terms of the Auld Alliance between France and Scotland. This was drawn up against Edward I of England who, after a quick succession of heirs' deaths, was reluctantly made feudal overlord of Scotland until it was decided who would succeed to the throne. But Edward still tried to impose authority over the Scots even after John Balliol was made king. He wanted them to ally with England against France which they refused and Edward put Balliol in the Tower of London . Thus, the Auld Alliance was born in 1295.

It is not a tally, it is knowledge of history and a dam good bit of banter between us but it seems you have taken something really personal on this thread or elsewhere, I don't know.

Quoting me out of contet without taking itno account my other posts and yes, you would probably summise that I was taking it "personal".

However, I was responding to (and even refferred to )the general feeling amongst alot of Scots that England is bad and to blame for all Scotlands ills. Quite often, the wars between England and Scotland had bugger all to do with either, but due to your "Auld Alliance" and the pesky nature of the French to start a fight every 20 years made you a strategic threat.

Originally posted by itchy_tartan_blanket
We are Europes leading producer of petroleum which,

No, you're not. I'll let you do the leg work for the exact figures, but I can tell you Norway outstrips UK production by at least double.

Originally posted by itchy_tartan_blanket
But Scotland has more than that. Other industries include production and exporting of electricity, iron, zinc, fish, textiles, whisky, banking and financial services, construction, education, entertainment, biotechnology, transport equipment, gas, ships, avionics, electronics, computer software and tourism. Edinburgh is the 6th largest fincancial centre in Europe and home of The Royal Bank of Scotland, 4th largest bank in the world. Scotland is set to become leaders in production and export of renewable energies by way of wave, wind and tidal power.

So? So does England and in fact, for everything you listed their, if I was so inlcined, I could beat you with an English example. What exactly was the point in your little rant?

By the way, didn't RBS need bailing out by the UK Government? Would love to have seen an independant Scotland afford that, seeing as the bailout was around a total of £45 Billion, roghly half the total Scottish GDP.....

Originally posted by itchy_tartan_blanket
What makes you think that Scotland would be denied entry to the EU?

because the President of the EU Commision said so? He stated that Scotland would NOT get automatic entry to the EU if it became independant and would have to go through the same application process as any other state.

Originally posted by itchy_tartan_blanket
What makes you think that Scotland would want entry to the EU?

Because that is what Salmon-man wants? I'm not saying it's a good idea, I'm pretty anti-EU myself, but that's the stated aim of your leader.

Originally posted by itchy_tartan_blanket
Switzerland springs to mind...Monaco too...Liechtenstein...

All of which had to negotiate their way into a free-trade zone agreement instead, have viable and massive financial industries to bankroll them and are also tax havens. None of which Scotland is/has. Scotland would need to be in the EU so you could get enough money to keep the country ticking over. You can't rely on that Oil you know, it's running out....

Originally posted by itchy_tartan_blanket
You said it yourself, Scotlands revenue from oil has been significant but it goes through Westminister, not Holyrood and isn't included in the GDP per capita in Scotland, and neither are gas revenues. If the money came directly to Scotland things would be different.

Actually, I've looked into these figures over the past few years when I argue the toss with a Scot and the answers always seem to have the effect of not hearing a peep out of them ever more...

The total cash generated by Oil sales from ALL North Sea sources is still far less than the money that is sent from English taxpayers North.

Originally posted by itchy_tartan_blanket
Scotland doesn't have more spent per head in the UK.

It does, actually. Around £1000 per head more per annum. Where are you pulling your facts from?

Originally posted by itchy_tartan_blanket
I think you'll find that it is Northern Ireland. Wales and Northern Ireland are also subsidised by England. What about them? You can't be selective in these matters. Wales also has a strong nationalist movement pushing for independence. Where is your attack on them?

Because we don't get Welsh or Irish on here bleating and bitching about how cruel and evil the English are, perhaps? They are also not clamouring after some highly remantacised nonsense sold to them by a pasty faced Anglophobic idiot. I have Scottish family and hear the same tired old boloocks trotted out every Christmas....

Originally posted by itchy_tartan_blanket
If you knew anything about the Barnett formula that Westminister has in place then you would know that it doesn't work. Hence the reasoning behind wanting greater fiscal powers rather than working within a fixed-budget set out by Westminister. Lord Steel produced a report a few years back and said that the best way forward would be to give Scotland greater control over taxations and budgets similar to what is in place on the Isle of if you want to vent some steam at someone then look to your own politicians in the south. We want change, you won't allow it...go figure...

Quite. I am very familiar with the Barnett formula and if you check my posting histroy, you'll find many posts of me venting against it.

Apparently according to Lord Irvine, the former Labour minister, the best answer to the West Lothian question and the Barnett formula is to "not ask the question.... But thats politicians for you.

Originally posted by itchy_tartan_blanket
Ah it comes to light now. You hate us
Borderline racism. Certainly prejudiced though.

Not at all, I was actually plagiarising an Andy Parsons joke of Mock the Week. Guess you don't watch it? Glad to know you have a sense of humour, as that remark was a tongue in cheek one!

Originally posted by itchy_tartan_blanket
I don't hate the English, just Westminister and its policies toward Scotland. Oh, and the uninformed English who spout their anti-Scottish pish when it is their own government that has the inneffective Barnett formula in place. Read up on that by the way. It was meant as a temporary measure in the late 70's and even the guy Barnett who created it says it shouldn't be in use.
Attack the government and not the people of Scotland who want the changes Westminister won't make....

I agree here, although I take offence that you assume I know nothing of the actual workings of the relationship between England and Scotland, when I actually know a great deal. A search of my posting history will show this.

I'm not spouting off against the Scots, (I'd like you to point me to where I have) but the whole situation we're in and the lies perpetrated by the SNP which Scots parrot against us English like we some sort of Evil Empire.

This situation is as much a mess of Scottish making as it is English.

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 05:49 PM

Originally posted by MrAndy
I have some questions on the subject of Great (?) Britain..

1. Do you cry on the 4th of July every year?

Yes I do. Recent years has seen coverage of celebrations in the U.S. It is boring and irrelevant to me.

2. Is underwear worn under a kilt?

Don't blaspheme!
A TRUE Scotsman doesn't wear underwear under a kilt. If anyone is caught wearing undies, they are paraded naked in the town square and pelted with dirty, skid-marked undies.

3. Why do you talk funny?


4. Can you order Sir Elton John or Sir Paul McCartney into battle?

No, but the Queen can. She'd send Sir Elton in first. It is risky getting him to cover the rear.

5. Do you miss David Beckham? I heard he is a famous football player, is he a quarterback?

Ah football. American football. That "sport" where you don't really use your feet or a ball? Heavily padded too. And you forever stop and start. Let us see how they'd fare against a rugby team
I'd have to (reluctantly) admit that i would fancy England or Wales chances over Scotlands

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 05:51 PM
reply to post by KyleOrtonArmy

yeah! then they pulled the same hilarious joke by turning up late for the second world war... you guyz!

but seriously why didn't the OP spell check or just copy and paste the wiki link to the appropriate article... in fact why cant the OP accept that you just cant teach pork or (for our kosher friends) teach a dog a card trick!

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 06:02 PM
reply to post by mr-lizard

Well, first of all I took several courses of history in college, it is one of my favoite subjects. I have been to England and stood in the Dover Castle museum and read your interpretation on the Revolutionary War, it's ideology different than the truth. I could sign up to be a member of the DAR if I chose to embellish the snobby route of society in America. However, I do also appreciate my British/Irish/Scottish/Welsh heritage. Even though our cultures have changed due to our environmental differences. The people who dared to come here and work to survive were second sons who had no easy given inheritances. Some wished to worship their own chosen religions and desired to have the right to bear arms. I oppose the English elistist snobbism, what reason does anyone have to think that they are entitled to this? History occured, those of us who are interested in it certainly study up on our interests, I lived in Virginia for a number of years because I enjoyed the history of the state. Much of the Revolutionary War was fought in South Carolina as well. I know someone who is the decendent of the Swap Fox Francis Marion. The people in this country are honest, selfreliant, hard working individuals who desire a
way of life free of religious persecution and which promotes democracy. I don't think bashing on America is very funny, you may need us again someday.... People don't forget who treats them badly. it is also bad for tourist dollars.

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 06:29 PM
reply to post by frugal

I agree with you....well except for the "promotes democracy part" and everything after that.

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 06:38 PM

Originally posted by frugal
I don't think bashing on America is very funny, you may need us again someday.... People don't forget who treats them badly. it is also bad for tourist dollars.

You're quite right, take no notice of them.
If you've got anyone to spare for a little war we might be starting against Brussels...

[edit on 4-4-2010 by DISRAELI]

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 07:36 PM
thanks op. lol honestly didn't know that

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 08:06 PM
reply to post by SKUNK2

A Rugby player destroys American footbal players in speed, strength and endurance. Not forgetting the fact 99% of NFL have used performance enhancing drugs to get their size and weight, not forgetting the fact they are superb athletes who wear body armour. Britsh have grit americans have armour, says it all really.

Negative. I don't want to get in a yelling match, but you are completely wrong. Maybe, you are thinking of the offensive linemen’s (fat slow guys) speed, the quarterback’s (skinny white guys) strength, and again the offensive linemen’s endurance. The NFL has so many different positions that the players of each position all have completely different body types.

There is no possible way the strongest rugby players are stronger than the strongest NFL players. Not in any weight lifting category.

There is no possible way the fastest rugby players come even close to the fastest NFL players. Not in the 40, not in the 100, not in the 200, and not in the 400.

I will give you endurance because it is obvious NFL players do not train to play longer than the 10-30 second bursts of each play.

American football players wear a helmet, shoulder pads, and thigh pads. The line players wear more padding because they are constantly getting hit. The athletic players wear as little pads as possible to maximize their speed and agility. Not full body armor.

I would also like you to prove that 99% of NFL players do steroids. Although, I would agree that performer enhancing drugs seem to be more prevalent in the NFL than any other sport. However, the NFL started testing in 1989. For comparison, the MLBaseball didn't start testing until 2003, and they are the main players getting caught.

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 08:18 PM
reply to post by tooo many pills

How can you, so definatively, say that there is "no way a Rugby player can...." with no actual comparison?

I used to play Rugby and unless you have NFL players who can outrun Olympic sprinters, then I doubt what you say. Reason being, I can do the 100m in 11.04. I played with guys that could do it quicker, too!

One guy I played Rugby with (who incidentally is now a professional soccer player in the Championship) could do the 100m in 10.6 seconds.

Bear in mind also that these times I am quoting were when we were in our late teens, not as full grown men!

I also played with guys who could bench the weights you claim NFL players can.

In the end, all you've done is blindly defend your NFL based on nothing more than your own opinion and no fact whatsoever. Kind of boils down, again to this belief that no matter what, USA is number 1!

Until you get a Rugby player and an NFL player side by side, then you simply cannot make this kind of comparison.

It is worth noting, however, that Rugby players have gone on to play in the NFL, but I am yet to hear of any NFL player taking up Rugby....

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 08:24 PM

^^ NFL hardest hits...

^^ Rugby hardest tackles (no helmets, no pads, no faceguards)

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 09:50 PM
reply to post by mr-lizard

I'm American and I gotta go with Rugby.

A bare ass-whoopin' hurts more than one with your britches on.

posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 12:46 AM

Originally posted by daviroo

The English certainly didn't conquer us through strength of arms (despite many attempts) but there is a lot of evidence that bribes were given by the English to the Scottish commissioners given authority to negotiate the act. There was a lot of civil unrest at the time with protests and petitions coming in from all over the country against the union.

This is what I learned in school also, and also that the Scottish parliament also was bribed to get ratification. It means that the Scottish parliament sold Scotland to the English for filthy lucre. I hope that you people don't let it happen again. Oh, I forgot, Britain signed on to the Lisbon treaty without the promised referendum. Man, you people sure know how to pick them. Almost as bad as US.

posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 02:11 AM
As a Briton (with Irish heritage/roots) I think it is SHAMEFUL that this is even neeeded (amd it is) and no it's not your place to educate, but while so many Americans DON'T want to learn anything (thinking they know everything they need to), places like this is he ideal spot for this. Star and flag for the post.

Geography in particular has always been and area where Americans' collective knowledge is, well, shocking - and I've lived in America, so I know the education system is to blame - not the people.

That said, it's interesting how politically aware alot of Americans are, which isn't something that you'd expect if, like me (and again - I stress - I've lived there), you've experienced that level of ignorance - on Geography - first hand.

[edit on 5/4/2010 by TailoredVagabond]

posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 02:26 AM

Originally posted by NEWclearMind
reply to post by Haydn_17

Why? Because without the USA you'd be speaking German now. When do British films gross a billion dollars? Never. You watch our movies, listen to our music, and try to copy us daily. So, that is why I care to learn nothing about the nanny state. By the way, immitation is the purest form of flattery.

P.S. You suckers shouldn't have given up your guns!

The hypocracy in that reply was quite overpowering. You did help out in the War - two years too late if you do your history.

It's Americans who mostly went to watch Avatar anyway! And what's your currency actually BASED ON???
Could you run that by me one more time, say, if China called in their debt???

Anyway, you steal our TV shows (life on mars, the office, millionaire, are just a few!!) and don't even THINK Jason Bourne (initials JB and and international spy...hmmmm) was an original concept.

Locate the letters 'u' and 's' instead of immitting them and putting a 'z' ANYWHERE English can get the tiniest bit difficult and we're straight....for now.

...and I tought us Brits were pompous. Geeez.

(sorry for use of the 'Z' there - that was irony - another new trick most Americans struggle with).

posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 03:20 AM
I'm not sure how this thread is helpful.

As a proud Yorkshireman and Englishman, I know that there are many shameful things that are simply not taught about our (UK) history (Clearances of the Scottish Highlands is one that springs to mind).

What do I know of US history, probably as little as they know of ours. WE can score points off each other about that history but unless history is relevant to you then you will not be engaged in it and will not learn the lessons it has to offer.

posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 03:50 AM
Its intresting to note that England, Wales and Scotland all have their own Football team yet there is no Great Britain team

Imagine the England team with Ryan Giggs alongside Rooney and Becks
They might even stand a chance at winning the world cup but alas dreams dont come true...

posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 04:16 AM
Question: Why are Anglo Saxon Europeans the only species on this planet who have been de-pigmented on the skin and hair?

[edit on 5-4-2010 by KyleOrtonArmy]

posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 04:38 AM

Originally posted by KyleOrtonArmy
Question: Why are Anglo Saxon Europeans the only species on this planet who have been de-pigmented on the skin and hair?

[edit on 5-4-2010 by KyleOrtonArmy]

that's pretty interesting link, worthy of its own Thread.

posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 04:42 AM
reply to post by KyleOrtonArmy

Than you for pointing us in that direction. I find the link's information very intriguing.

My science education being very basic, I could not see at first why a reduction in melanin (in the Baltic regions) should be supposed to be the effect of Vitamin D shortage. Looking at it again, I think the article is suggesting there was an adaptation to compensate for the shortage. I trust I've got that right.

posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 04:48 AM

Originally posted by woodwardjnr

Originally posted by KyleOrtonArmy
Question: Why are Anglo Saxon Europeans the only species on this planet who have been de-pigmented on the skin and hair?

[edit on 5-4-2010 by KyleOrtonArmy]

that's pretty interesting link, worthy of its own Thread.

I agree

Gee this thread has turned into who has the biggest penis

Remember one thing, you want a aussie standing beside you in war.

Rugby. NRL, gee type in hurling in ya google search


top topics

<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in