|
|
Post by thomas on Sept 22, 2023 8:06:44 GMT
Nothing new here, I went to school in Scotland in the 1960s, the history syllabus was most parochial, based firmly on Scottish history rather than general European and world wide history, even then the limits of Scottish education stopped firmly at the borders of Scotland. This resulted in what we see today, blinkered and limited and often sectarian views of the world. I'm mildly surprised that after a decade of SNP governance schools attempt to teach anybody anything. i cant argue what you were aught either way , but largely from what ive read over scotland from my generation and prior much of scottish hisotry was largely ignored in favour of british histroy. Why for exampe is the battle of hastings given such prominenece when it was nothing to do with scotland , and should have been relegated to a footnate in european hisotry?
Scottish folk teaching scottish history though om.......my! how very dare they.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Sept 22, 2023 8:08:19 GMT
The caller said, " I had to take her out because all she was fed was William Wallace, Braveheart, freedom – everything that’s good about Scotland.” “Everything that was bad about Scotland was down to the English and that’s all she was fed.” So, the education system indoctrinates the Jocks in victim-hood against the nasty Inglish, and the SNP try and get 16-17 year olds to vote. Shame on those for politically weaponising the education of children to vote the way the bravehearts want. Wallace was an outlaw, a murder a traitor. wallace was never a traitor wuite obviously , but was certainly reagarded by your countrymen as a murderer. A hero in scotland , no different to the scots and irish regarding for example who regard oliver cromwell as a murdering despot on a par with hitler.
History is in the eye of the beholder , and how we regard events and characters from it.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Sept 22, 2023 8:09:50 GMT
Wallace was a kunt. A murderer. England was invited into Scotland which was on the brink of civil war. Wallace pushed it into war. He was a traitor and rightly convicted and sentenced for it. Anyway, the past is the past. The present is the present. We're all British now, fellow Brit. Abolish devolution. ....and vinnys off into another rant....... |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Sept 22, 2023 8:10:54 GMT
That may be why you fail to give us accurate clarification about William Wallace. The romantic nationalist script is all very well to sell films in Hollywood, but he is hardly a significant figure in the scheme of things. You would be far better holding the man who invented the telephone in such reverence. check my post on vinnys thread , about braveheart , and feel free to join in . |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Sept 22, 2023 8:16:00 GMT
The caller said, " I had to take her out because all she was fed was William Wallace, Braveheart, freedom – everything that’s good about Scotland.” “Everything that was bad about Scotland was down to the English and that’s all she was fed.” So, the education system indoctrinates the Jocks in victim-hood against the nasty Inglish, and the SNP try and get 16-17 year olds to vote. Shame on those for politically weaponising the education of children to vote the way the bravehearts want. It's a very sick and depraved engineered culture built on hate. scotland and its culture is older than england. Not sure how its built on hate , but once again you retract into personal views rather than reality.
The scottish and irish gaels were educating and christianising , generally civilising the anglo saxons during the english dark ages , teaching them how to read write and add up. The anglo saxons when they came to these islands were the hatefull brutal savages , who put their sick and disabled to death.
We educated anglo saxon kings like athelfrith of northumbria , indeed we still have record of some of his poems written in gaelic all those centuries ago.
If scotland and our cultire is built on hate in your opinion because we want independence from your country , then 65 nations around the world from the USA to india must be the same as they wanted independence from your country.
Its a bit of a tall claim , bulit on nothing more than petulance.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Sept 22, 2023 8:19:36 GMT
Wallace is a national hero because of his leadership in the fight against English domination What, in the 1300s? Only a desperate lowlife would indoctrinate kids into hating other kids over it.
agincourt was fought a century later. Why should english remember fondly great victories like this but not scotland and bannockburn? Timescale of events is a rather pathetic argument.
A country is its history myths legends and culture and people. Wether its fro mthe 21st century , or the late thirteenth.
Next you will be out trying tu pull down the wallace monument and statues to bruce like the people in england who do the same with slave traders.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2023 8:25:14 GMT
Your pseudo-history is based on Hollywood and BS, which you appear to hide behind to excuse your hatred of England and the English.
Personally, I ask myself why should I care about a miserable bunch of IRA supporting grunts who leech off and shit on their neighbours? Do these chavs and their hostile engineered minority nationalist movement make up all of Scotland? I think not.
|
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Sept 22, 2023 8:53:24 GMT
LOL so Scottish history is being taught by Scottish nationalists with a bias of nationalism, nothing new in that anyone remember the world with the big red map? Or the Germans with their Aryan race or the Normans or the Vikings, etc, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Sept 22, 2023 14:16:30 GMT
Your pseudo-history is based on Hollywood and BS, which you appear to hide behind to excuse your hatred of England and the English. Personally, I ask myself why should I care about a miserable bunch of IRA supporting grunts who leech off and shit on their neighbours? Do these chavs and their hostile engineered minority nationalist movement make up all of Scotland? I think not. ok bold statements once again b4 , which seem to be based on what you think rather than any inaccuracy on history on my part.
what parts of scottish history do you think are wrong , and what is it you disagree with and why?
try not to thump the keyboard in some spittle flecked rant and do try and be coherent .
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 22, 2023 18:47:12 GMT
Certainly at primary school it was all Scottish history, more so becasue we were taught in the Stirling Educational area so Bannockburn, Stirling Bridge, Sheriffmuir, Falkirk and Sauchiburn were all close at hand. The Castles of Stirling and Edinburgh were of course often visited (and the Wallace Monument) and that grounded the history. I did not really do history at secondary school which seemed to be mainly European 19th century. There has always been a certain bias in Scotland as regards England, and my mother is English, so the teaching of history is no stranger to that bias. Just a thought Gordon of Khartoum was a descendant of part of the Sottish diaspora from his great grandfather who was a Captain in the army born in Scotland. In what way do you mean 'bias'. Scottish history is full of aggression from the English. Just as French history is full of aggression from the English. Being taught that is not being anti-English it is being taught what actually happened. Throughout history England was a very belligerent country. However I have to admit that at times the Scots invaded England e.g. James IVs cross border incursion which ended in his death and the army's defeat at Flodden. Interesting that you were taught a lot of our history when we, in Moray, certainly weren't. Out of interest, when were you in primary school? I was at primary school in the early sixties. The bias I was referring to was that the concentration was on English aggression which did exist but also French aggression against England which the Scots were happy to join in the fun. The whole of course is complicated by the fact that most of the people doing instigation of fighting were part of the Norman-Angevin elite who had carved up England, part of Scotland and eventually Wales which is self evident in the names. It is a complicated picture that calling it simply English aggression is an over simplification. Once we move into the English civil war then Scotland was very much the aggressor in the first instance and then we move into Covenanting and then the Scottish Kirk which probably effectively was much more aggressive against the populace than any English army. Thou shalt not sit and stare out of the window on the Sabbath. EDIT I was at college in Edinburgh in 69/70 and the Sundays spent in the city were pretty dreary as the pubs were closed the Hotels were few and far between, you could not get fish and chips, most cafes were closed, most shops were closed, the cinemas did not start till about 4 o'clock, there was one small snack bar open on Lothian Road which had about five seats, Rose Street and Princes Street were pretty well empty and remember Rose street is after the English Rose. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Sept 23, 2023 10:53:22 GMT
In what way do you mean 'bias'. Scottish history is full of aggression from the English. Just as French history is full of aggression from the English. Being taught that is not being anti-English it is being taught what actually happened. Throughout history England was a very belligerent country. However I have to admit that at times the Scots invaded England e.g. James IVs cross border incursion which ended in his death and the army's defeat at Flodden. Interesting that you were taught a lot of our history when we, in Moray, certainly weren't. Out of interest, when were you in primary school? I was at primary school in the early sixties. The bias I was referring to was that the concentration was on English aggression which did exist but also French aggression against England which the Scots were happy to join in the fun. The whole of course is complicated by the fact that most of the people doing instigation of fighting were part of the Norman-Angevin elite who had carved up England, part of Scotland and eventually Wales which is self evident in the names. It is a complicated picture that calling it simply English aggression is an over simplification. Once we move into the English civil war then Scotland was very much the aggressor in the first instance and then we move into Covenanting and then the Scottish Kirk which probably effectively was much more aggressive against the populace than any English army. Thou shalt not sit and stare out of the window on the Sabbath. EDIT I was at college in Edinburgh in 69/70 and the Sundays spent in the city were pretty dreary as the pubs were closed the Hotels were few and far between, you could not get fish and chips, most cafes were closed, most shops were closed, the cinemas did not start till about 4 o'clock, there was one small snack bar open on Lothian Road which had about five seats, Rose Street and Princes Street were pretty well empty and remember Rose street is after the English Rose. british , not scottish history has largely been a key part of the scottish curriculum since at least the nineteenth century sandy. Famous historians like tam devine have mentioned this in various books . I cant comment on what you were taught in the sixties , but certainly from what ive read over the years , the teaching of scottish history seemed largely to depend on where you went to school and the efforts of your teacher , rather than some uniform policy that all scottish schoools engaged in.
what a strange sentence. all history is biased , and you admit yourself english aggression has been a key feature of scottish history spanning more than a millenia , from the initial anglo saxon invasions up the tweed valley in the late 6th century , to the last major military conflict in 1820 , spanning some 1300 years. Im not sure why you are trying to imply the teaching of this is somehow wrong. The english will have their bias over teaching theri history as we have with ours.
again you imply this is somehow wrong? whats wrong with us joining in with our french friends ?
im not sure what you mean complicated? The whole war between england and france was started as an internal squabble between a load of french elite who owned land both sides of the channel. dont know what you mean by carving up part of scotland.?
the normans took control of the whole of scotland in terms of marrying into the native gaelic families , and of course took the scottish crown by the same route. they also settled ireland as well , the old anglo norman elite are famous throughout irish history.
i would agree , though morayloons base point about it being english aggression stands true in terms of the two kingdoms warring with each other. As you say , it is vastly more complicated as all conflicts and history is.
the english civil war? You are showing your age here sandy , its now more popularly known as the war of the three kingdoms. Dont know what you mean about the kirk being more agressive against the population than the english army?
cromwells siege(under general monck) and sack of dundee would today be regarded as an internaitonal war crime. He sold thousands of scots into slavery with the irish in the english carribean colonies. I know the kirk had thier moments , but i dont recall anything of this nature , and of course the kirks most famous acheivement was the education of scotlands poor .
and? Dont undesrtand the significance of your paragraph? Are you telling me you are a unionist because your maw was english , and there is some street in dunedain called rose street after the english rose? Fuck me sandy , but if national identity was based on something as puerile as the name of a fucking street there would be no nations on this earth. Did you know there is a chinatown in london? When are the english giving up their sovereignty to beijing sandy? 
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 23, 2023 22:14:35 GMT
I was at primary school in the early sixties. The bias I was referring to was that the concentration was on English aggression which did exist but also French aggression against England which the Scots were happy to join in the fun. The whole of course is complicated by the fact that most of the people doing instigation of fighting were part of the Norman-Angevin elite who had carved up England, part of Scotland and eventually Wales which is self evident in the names. It is a complicated picture that calling it simply English aggression is an over simplification. Once we move into the English civil war then Scotland was very much the aggressor in the first instance and then we move into Covenanting and then the Scottish Kirk which probably effectively was much more aggressive against the populace than any English army. Thou shalt not sit and stare out of the window on the Sabbath. EDIT I was at college in Edinburgh in 69/70 and the Sundays spent in the city were pretty dreary as the pubs were closed the Hotels were few and far between, you could not get fish and chips, most cafes were closed, most shops were closed, the cinemas did not start till about 4 o'clock, there was one small snack bar open on Lothian Road which had about five seats, Rose Street and Princes Street were pretty well empty and remember Rose street is after the English Rose. british , not scottish history has largely been a key part of the scottish curriculum since at least the nineteenth century sandy. Famous historians like tam devine have mentioned this in various books . I cant comment on what you were taught in the sixties , but certainly from what ive read over the years , the teaching of scottish history seemed largely to depend on where you went to school and the efforts of your teacher , rather than some uniform policy that all scottish schoools engaged in.
what a strange sentence. all history is biased , and you admit yourself english aggression has been a key feature of scottish history spanning more than a millenia , from the initial anglo saxon invasions up the tweed valley in the late 6th century , to the last major military conflict in 1820 , spanning some 1300 years. Im not sure why you are trying to imply the teaching of this is somehow wrong. The english will have their bias over teaching theri history as we have with ours.
again you imply this is somehow wrong? whats wrong with us joining in with our french friends ?
im not sure what you mean complicated? The whole war between england and france was started as an internal squabble between a load of french elite who owned land both sides of the channel. dont know what you mean by carving up part of scotland.?
the normans took control of the whole of scotland in terms of marrying into the native gaelic families , and of course took the scottish crown by the same route. they also settled ireland as well , the old anglo norman elite are famous throughout irish history.
i would agree , though morayloons base point about it being english aggression stands true in terms of the two kingdoms warring with each other. As you say , it is vastly more complicated as all conflicts and history is.
the english civil war? You are showing your age here sandy , its now more popularly known as the war of the three kingdoms. Dont know what you mean about the kirk being more agressive against the population than the english army?
cromwells siege(under general monck) and sack of dundee would today be regarded as an internaitonal war crime. He sold thousands of scots into slavery with the irish in the english carribean colonies. I know the kirk had thier moments , but i dont recall anything of this nature , and of course the kirks most famous acheivement was the education of scotlands poor .
and? Dont undesrtand the significance of your paragraph? Are you telling me you are a unionist because your maw was english , and there is some street in dunedain called rose street after the english rose? Fuck me sandy , but if national identity was based on something as puerile as the name of a fucking street there would be no nations on this earth. Did you know there is a chinatown in london? When are the english giving up their sovereignty to beijing sandy?
My history was mainly at primary school and it was largely Scottish and mostly local as I said but of course 'local' was kind of mainly Scottish. The bias of course is 'English Aggression' as opposed to disputes amongst nations whereby Scots were largely good and English invariably bad. The point however is that it was mainly the Norman/Angevin elite that were involved in arguments over power. It is an interesting point that Wallace invaded England where 'freedom' of course was not an issue for Scots. I am afraid to me it is and always will be the civil war just the same as I was never taught as regards the Scottish wars of Independence. The significance of the paragraph is that the effects of the Scottish Kirk were blighting Scottish cities as late as the 70s and that Edinburgh recognised the Union as significant with its streets names in the new town, Rose Street, Hanover Street, George Street, Princes Street, St George's Squ. I am a Unionist because I like England and the English (not prefer, just like) and in general my time in England (25 years) was not a problem as regards being Scottish, not so for my wife in Scotland being English. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Sept 24, 2023 9:27:38 GMT
british , not scottish history has largely been a key part of the scottish curriculum since at least the nineteenth century sandy. Famous historians like tam devine have mentioned this in various books . I cant comment on what you were taught in the sixties , but certainly from what ive read over the years , the teaching of scottish history seemed largely to depend on where you went to school and the efforts of your teacher , rather than some uniform policy that all scottish schoools engaged in.
what a strange sentence. all history is biased , and you admit yourself english aggression has been a key feature of scottish history spanning more than a millenia , from the initial anglo saxon invasions up the tweed valley in the late 6th century , to the last major military conflict in 1820 , spanning some 1300 years. Im not sure why you are trying to imply the teaching of this is somehow wrong. The english will have their bias over teaching theri history as we have with ours.
again you imply this is somehow wrong? whats wrong with us joining in with our french friends ?
im not sure what you mean complicated? The whole war between england and france was started as an internal squabble between a load of french elite who owned land both sides of the channel. dont know what you mean by carving up part of scotland.?
the normans took control of the whole of scotland in terms of marrying into the native gaelic families , and of course took the scottish crown by the same route. they also settled ireland as well , the old anglo norman elite are famous throughout irish history.
i would agree , though morayloons base point about it being english aggression stands true in terms of the two kingdoms warring with each other. As you say , it is vastly more complicated as all conflicts and history is.
the english civil war? You are showing your age here sandy , its now more popularly known as the war of the three kingdoms. Dont know what you mean about the kirk being more agressive against the population than the english army?
cromwells siege(under general monck) and sack of dundee would today be regarded as an internaitonal war crime. He sold thousands of scots into slavery with the irish in the english carribean colonies. I know the kirk had thier moments , but i dont recall anything of this nature , and of course the kirks most famous acheivement was the education of scotlands poor .
and? Dont undesrtand the significance of your paragraph? Are you telling me you are a unionist because your maw was english , and there is some street in dunedain called rose street after the english rose? Fuck me sandy , but if national identity was based on something as puerile as the name of a fucking street there would be no nations on this earth. Did you know there is a chinatown in london? When are the english giving up their sovereignty to beijing sandy?
My history was mainly at primary school and it was largely Scottish and mostly local as I said but of course 'local' was kind of mainly Scottish. The bias of course is 'English Aggression' as opposed to disputes amongst nations whereby Scots were largely good and English invariably bad. The point however is that it was mainly the Norman/Angevin elite that were involved in arguments over power. It is an interesting point that Wallace invaded England where 'freedom' of course was not an issue for Scots. I am afraid to me it is and always will be the civil war just the same as I was never taught as regards the Scottish wars of Independence. The significance of the paragraph is that the effects of the Scottish Kirk were blighting Scottish cities as late as the 70s and that Edinburgh recognised the Union as significant with its streets names in the new town, Rose Street, Hanover Street, George Street, Princes Street, St George's Squ. I am a Unionist because I like England and the English (not prefer, just like) and in general my time in England (25 years) was not a problem as regards being Scottish, not so for my wife in Scotland being English. Thanks for your post.
while provisding anecdotal evidence to back up our views , i was at school in west central scotland from the seventies till i left in the late eighties. In either primary school , or high school , i cant think of one single part of scottish pre union history that i was taught.
We were taught rubbish about the anglo saxons , who were an irrelevance in scotland , the romans , and stuff like the foreign battle of hastings which had nothing to do with scotland. Most of the relevant scottish history was ignored.
How did scotland come to be?
The great battles and celtic peoples who formed the kingdom.
Our native language , which as we know the original education act in the 19th century imposed by the british parliament ignored. So on and so forth.
ive never heard that. In fact , the opposite is often taught. Tam devine points this out that since the 18th century , the scottish and british educated class have largely mocked scotland and implied we were somehow backward savages , often engaging in evil acts against the poor english , who somehow spoke irish and at one point were religous zealots before the union somehow came to our rescue. All nonsense of course that an educated person can pick apart. Funnily enough we see the same regarding the welsh and irish.
it was. We all recognise that. its irrelevant though to the point that england had no right to constantly invade scotland and try and take us over. both the native anglo saxon kings , and the norman french all engaged in the same attempts to take us over , and failed repeatedly.
so did many other scottish kings and leaders right down to the 18th century. Again whats your point? that englands 1300 years of aggression to scotland is somehow annulled because scots dared to fight back and invade england?
from an english point of view ....certainly , but not from a scottish or irish hence why they thought calling it the war of the three kingdoms as more appropriate.
perhaps i misunderstand you . This is a bit garbled , but thats the point moray and i are both making that none of us were taught about the wars of independence. Are you agreeing with us now? one of the most important episodes in scottish hisotry werent taught , and ths isnt a normal situation in any civilised country , missing our important parts of our nations evolution.
i honestly have no idea what you are talking about?
the irish had the same problem with unionism , and many of their streets were named similarly. Didnt stop them leaving the uk .
there is good and bad in every nation on earth , and england is a lovely country with many decent people. So id France , and many other nations. That doesnt mean i want paris , dublin , oslo or elsehwere to run scotland. I have family who are english , irish , american , and a brother in law who lives in france. If family ties clouded countries sovereignty and independence , i doubt there would be many independent countires on earth.
The union is an irrelevance now to many folk across these islands , and that irrelevance is growing as the older baby boomers pass away. For them , the union once meant something , but you can see they are on the retreat in all the uk nations.
|
|
|
|
Post by om15 on Sept 24, 2023 9:45:06 GMT
I think that is pretty much a true statement, The Scots have been straining at the leash for a while, Wales ditto but they are not really sure why, and the English are becoming resentful because they believe that they are funding these countries and no longer find the Union so important. The Queen was effective in her role, but the new bloke isn't really installing much enthusiasm in anybody.
In the case of Scotland, the UK Government rely on oil revenue and they need somewhere well away from civilisation to store their nukes, so Scotland isn't going anywhere soon, Wales needs to be careful what it wishes for, their only asset is tourism and Drakeford is busying himself stopping that, so really it would be in all our interests if Wales went independent and joined Patagonia.
An increasing population of the New British in England don't even know where Scotland is and don't know what the Union is, as these people will form a majority in England by about next April then they won't be much of an outcry if the Union is dissolved.
We seem to be in an Island where everyone is discontented about everything, but after Mrs May, Boris Johnson and Ricky shafting us, and the prospect of Sir Keir kneeling all over the place as he takes our money and gives it to the EU it is hardly surprising.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Sept 24, 2023 9:59:53 GMT
I think that is pretty much a true statement, The Scots have been straining at the leash for a while, Wales ditto but they are not really sure why, and the English are becoming resentful because they believe that they are funding these countries and no longer find the Union so important. The Queen was effective in her role, but the new bloke isn't really installing much enthusiasm in anybody. In the case of Scotland, the UK Government rely on oil revenue and they need somewhere well away from civilisation to store their nukes, so Scotland isn't going anywhere soon, Wales needs to be careful what it wishes for, their only asset is tourism and Drakeford is busying himself stopping that, so really it would be in all our interests if Wales went independent and joined Patagonia. An increasing population of the New British in England don't even know where Scotland is and don't know what the Union is, as these people will form a majority in England by about next April then they won't be much of an outcry if the Union is dissolved. We seem to be in an Island where everyone is discontented about everything, but after Mrs May, Boris Johnson and Ricky shafting us, and the prospect of Sir Keir kneeling all over the place as he takes our money and gives it to the EU it is hardly surprising. a fair post with some minor disagreement ommy.
you arent funding these countries ommy. since 1999 , scotland has got back less than half the revenue your tax collectors have taken from us. The opposite is true of course. Why do you think england/uk is struggling so badly today , both financially and militarily compared to say a century ago?
Then , you ahd the ability to drain countires like india of £45 trillion over 200 years , and millions of empire troops at your command. Now you have an army thats smaller than the capacity of parkheid , and are reduced to penny pinching from us jocks taffs and paddies.
so you now admit you need us for our resources and land to store weapons? Talking of the nukes , even the americans are calling for you to now decide if you want to have a military , or the nukes as you cant afford both. Once we leave , perhaps we can rent you faslane for an agreed upon amount of time , say 5 or ten years post scot indy , to find somewhere suitable to store them. for a small fee of course.
oh dear ommy. The "new british" ? Is this a cry for help about the mass immigration both labour and tory have allowed ?
well aye , i said that yesterday , it a natural consequence of the continued managed decline of brittannia , and the lack of purpose of this so called union.
|
|
