It is illegal to “go armed” to Parliament. This means any weaponry. Can a Congressman take a shotgun onto the floor of the House?
While this is true, it is phrased in a deliberately misleading way.
What is prohibited is “buggery”. In English law, this means specifically anal sex with a man under the age of 18, or a woman under the age of 16; or anal sex without consent (i.e. anal rape). It does not mean all anal sex, as I believe it does in some states of the USA.
Depends what you mean by “make out”. There is a prohibition on public indecency, but you’d have to be going pretty far to fall foul of that.
Not at all. The use of Britain to describe the island on which Scotland, Wales and England are situated has been in more or less continuous use since the Ninth Century, as has the term British to describe its inhabitants.
This is partly why I think that MadHun’s refusal to acknowledge that there is such a thing as Britain is (with respect) so silly.
Call the landmass whatever you want, I’m referring to the countries which inhabit it and the common misconception that Britain (the "pseudo-political entity, not the landmass) stops short of Hadrian’s Wall. My original argument was that the Act of Union did not bring about one country, hence my view that Britain, as thought of by the rest of the world, has never existed. This is more about attitude than anything else.
MADHUN-
I can understand your anger at the clearances but the fact is that English peasants suffered every bit as much as Scots,try very hard not to equate English with English Aristocracy.Throughout virtually all of England,Ireland,Scotland and Wales clearances took place and the evictees were left to starve on the spot or make their way to nearby towns and starve the choice was pretty bleak.
There are hundreds if not thousands of deserted villages ,some had been inhabited for hundreds of years ,suddenly they were emptied,for instance Wharram Percy in the Yorks Wolds, and because they have been left alone for so long they are proviing valuable evidence,we now realise that these isles were more heavily populated than has been thought.
Oh, and for the record ,much of the damage in Scotland was exarcerbated by the connivance of Scots lairds who in too many cases worked with the English Aristocracy to betray the trust placed in them by their own people-simply for greed or by providing mercenaries to crush those who wouldn’t comply, there were many scores to settle .
A book written by one of your countrymen gives a good idea of the privations our forbears had to contend with:-
‘The Lost Villages of Britain’ by Richard Muir-pub Micheal Joseph Ltd
MADHUN-
I can understand your anger at the clearances but the fact is that English peasants suffered every bit as much as Scots,try very hard not to equate English with English Aristocracy.Throughout virtually all of England,Ireland,Scotland and Wales clearances took place and the evictees were left to starve on the spot or make their way to nearby towns and starve the choice was pretty bleak.
There are hundreds if not thousands of deserted villages ,some had been inhabited for hundreds of years ,suddenly they were emptied,for instance Wharram Percy in the Yorks Wolds, and because they have been left alone for so long they are proviing valuable evidence,we now realise that these isles were more heavily populated than has been thought.
Oh, and for the record ,much of the damage in Scotland was exarcerbated by the connivance of Scots lairds who in too many cases worked with the English Aristocracy to betray the trust placed in them by their own people-simply for greed or by providing mercenaries to crush those who wouldn’t comply, there were many scores to settle .
A book written by one of your countrymen gives a good idea of the privations our forbears had to contend with:-
‘The Lost Villages of Britain’ by Richard Muir-pub Micheal Joseph Ltd
I’m well aware of the low-life Scottish nobles who sold our country down the river. Without them the Act of Union may never have been passed as they were all paid their 30 pieces of silver when the Act came to ballot. I am also aware that there were clearances in other parts of the UK however I remain doubtful as to whether they were as severe and bloodthirsty. The fact that you speak of villages remaining untouched confirms this; if it were a Highland village it would almost certainly have burned. I’m not aware of the political reasons for the land clearing in other parts of the UK but the simple fact of the matter is that the Highland Clearances served 3 purposes:
To ensure that Scotland would never again raise an army against the English
To provide the English army with strong and able conscripts, to be used primarily as cannon fodder
To clear land for the grazing of sheep and provide lands and estates to both Scottish and English aristocracy
You have to admit that it all leaves a sour taste. In any case I do appreciate that there is a flip side to this particular coin but you can forgive me if I am, from a historical point of view, more sympathetic towards the plight of my own countrymen given that the perpetrators were of a foreign nation. Thanks for your well articulated point, I’ll check out the book that you mentioned.
Note to all: NEVER criticise ‘Braveheart’ to a Scot.
It represents a vital part of Scottish (and indeed British) history, made all the more important now with the devolution situation. How would you like it if somebody bad-mouthed something about which you felt passionate? (or uptight?)
It’s almost as bad as calling an American a colonist.
On an entirely separate note, I am currently using a British-built computer, and it leaks oil beautifully thank you very much.
Cheers plank but I’m afraid to say that Braveheart is very much a work of fiction. It has a few grains of truth to it though (ironically, the degree to which we were betrayed by our own so-called “nobles” being the most accurate aspect).
Now, really, casdave, is that a genuine question? Are you trying to make the point that to call the citizens of the United States “Americans” is inaccurate because the United States is only a small part of the Americas? Well, duh! Of course. Tell us something that we have not heard a thousand freaking times!
Do you really not know what to call Americans? Just in case you really don’t know, I will be happy to tell you. Call us Americans.
There seems to be some sensitivity here,Scots don’t want to be called British,even though it’s accurate,and some AMERICANS don’t want to be called colonists which, although very outdated ,is also accurate.
Maybe ,just maybe, Canadians are not keen on being labelled Americans which is also accurate .
I believe some Texans take great pride in being known as Texan.
It’s just a matter of politeness to address you in the way you would prefer ,and if someone makes a mistake why get mad?
I have had many British “friends” and though they were all assholes I don’t remember any of them ever calling me a colonist. If they had it would have baffled me because Brits could be labeled as colonist just as easily as Americans. The British Isles where once a colony of Rome and later a colony of the Anglos, Saxons, and Jutes. Oooohh well you can’t expect British to read their own god damn history… At least Americans know that yes they were once a colony.
If you had taken the trouble to read the thread before giving us the benefit of your historical wisdom, you would have seen that the OP was referring to a supposedly-British character in a USA television advertisement. Nobody has produced any real-life examples of a British person referring to an American as a “colonist” (but see below).
If you had taken the trouble to read any British history, you would know that we have not yet been invaded either by English-speaking Canadians or by Americans of non-Latin European extraction (though I am sure it is only a matter of time). You might have been thinking of the settlement of the Angles, but that was over a thousand years ago.
By the way, a colonist is a person who leaves their country of origin to found a new settlement in another country. A person who is a native of one of the colonies is a colonial. Hence the Pilgrim Fathers were colonists, but those born in America before the War of Independence were colonials.
