|
-
2nd November 16, 07:25 AM
#1
 Originally Posted by neloon
Yes, you are wild - we certainly notice that. I think I have previously called you a bunch of teenagers in reference to the relative ages of our countries - you don't listen properly, you slam doors, you deliberately misunderstand, you know it all and certainly think that we're condescending. Have teenagers ever thought you were being condescending even when you knew you were not?
I think this is about right. Our Civil War was about 210 years after yours. We're roughly in the empire phase, now, so no wonder that other countries don't always love us. We're probably about 100-200 years more wild than you.
The other thought that I had is this: perhaps the answer is dependent on our genes. Maybe all the wild Scots left, either to Ulster or America or Canada or Australia, and the current population in Scotland is descended from the more sedate Scots who stayed put. It's hard for us in the South (who were willing to fight a war to try and get out of the country we were in) to understand the recent Scottish Independence Referendum vote. Maybe we're just genetically more rebellious?
Last edited by davidlpope; 2nd November 16 at 07:30 AM.
-
The Following User Says 'Aye' to davidlpope For This Useful Post:
-
2nd November 16, 08:01 AM
#2
 Originally Posted by davidlpope
I think this is about right. Our Civil War was about 210 years after yours. We're roughly in the empire phase, now, so no wonder that other countries don't always love us. We're probably about 100-200 years more wild than you.
The other thought that I had is this: perhaps the answer is dependent on our genes. Maybe all the wild Scots left, either to Ulster or America or Canada or Australia, and the current population in Scotland is descended from the more sedate Scots who stayed put. It's hard for us in the South (who were willing to fight a war to try and get out of the country we were in) to understand the recent Scottish Independence Referendum vote. Maybe we're just genetically more rebellious?
David,
I don't quite get the Civil War allusion - the old Scotland was so full of internal strife all the time that no period was designated as a "Civil War" though England had a civil war at the time you hint at.
I'm not sure about the genes idea. The only time that Scots were slightly adventurous was for the Darien Scheme (which was a flop and a main cause of the union 0f 1707) *
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme
Otherwise most Scots were forced to emigrate by economic circumstances not some kind of spirit of adventure. Obviously to survive the sea journey and the privations of carving out a new life may have selected out those with determination. Many of those left behind died in the slums of Glasgow (life expectancy 30 years), were killed in service for the Crown or, in the Highlands particularly, succumbed to alcoholic poisoning.. Most voluntary Scottish emigration was to Canada and New Zealand and their descendants don't seem (to us) particularly "wild".
Rule #5 does not allow me to comment on the "sedate" Scots and the Referendum other than to say that it wasn't/isn't really all that sedate.
Alan
*See
http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/...tcm4555678.asp
Last edited by neloon; 2nd November 16 at 08:10 AM.
-
The Following 3 Users say 'Aye' to neloon For This Useful Post:
-
2nd November 16, 08:45 AM
#3
Bill & Jumary.
I am really disappointed in your recent replies on this thread. As far as I am aware, no one has said anything about not wearing the kilt or who, or who cannot wear the kilt in Scotland or elsewhere in the world. That is not and has not been, the topic of conversation that this thread is about.
Your replies say to me that you have not "listened to" or understood what some of us are saying, or even attempted to answer Neloon's original question in the first thread that this tread has grown from. I have to say, that some kilt wearers outwith Scotland, who's insecurity, defensiveness and yes, desperation shows oh so clearly to us by suggesting that some contributors cease this very civilised conversation.
Now, it could be said that those of us from our point of view have not made ourselves clear in what we have carefully written and whilst that may be the case from your point of view, I really do think that you have not seriously read what has been said and not understood it either. Had you taken the time to do so, I really don't understand how you could say what you have just said.
I say this with the greatest of respect to you both in particular and all those that have contributed to this delicate topic.
Last edited by Jock Scot; 2nd November 16 at 09:30 AM.
" Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the adherence of idle minds and minor tyrants". Field Marshal Lord Slim.
-
The Following User Says 'Aye' to Jock Scot For This Useful Post:
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks