Posted on 09/19/2014 8:55:10 AM PDT by Fenhalls555
What ignorance.
Wallace was no savage, but an educated (minor) nobleman who travelled across Europe, spoke French and Latin. Yes, he was brutal when fighting, but by god so was everyone else at the time. Have you forgotten what Henry V did to French prisoners?.
I expected better from you.
I just get teed off by Scottish nationalists, particularly those whose only political thinking on the issue is based on a hate-england mentality stirred up by that bloody awful film.
The fact is that there is very little definitively known about the real William Wallace, but he certainly was nothing like he was portrayed in Braveheart. I would say though that even by the standards of the time he pushed the savagery envelope. Not as much as Robert the Bruce did, but bad enough.
Actually, having spoken to a lot of nationalists, I dont think its anti-tory so much as anti-city of london.
Fair enough.
I know, but spare a thought for me, I am the one having to live amongst them, lol.
Well, at least you only have a 45% chance of meeting one. :)
33.33% actually, lol.
At last! An intelligent comment about "democracy"!
Look - for choosing which of two dopes gets to be a congressman, or the dog catcher, having their fellow dopes vote and letting the winner have the prize is at least half-reasonable.
Having 4.5% of the residents of a 300 year old state choose to dissolve it, over the objections of the other 95.5%, in an election when children and foreigners get to vote, is just plain ridiculous.
The various Quebec independence referenda are the same. The last time, "oui" lost by several thousand votes out of millions cast. Suppose next time "oui" wins by several thousand votes? Does that mean that millions of Canadians need to surrender their nationality unwillingly?
Fundamental changes require massive majorities, or they should. Changing the US Constitution requires 2/3 of the House, 2/3 of the Senate, and 3/4 of the States. To change the (unwritten) constitution of the UK by a simple majority of a tiny minority, when Nigerians and Pakistanis get to vote along with actual Scots?
It is just so blindingly idiotic, I still can't believe such an "election" was allowed to take place.
The Founders abhorred "democracy", and for good reason.
The issue is bigger than a treaty and should require a large majority for such a drastic shift IMO.
I understand with all the socialism and the Muslim problems of England how they would want to break away from the lunacy.
Should take a large majority and not the flavor of the month.
The Founders were so, so right in abhorring democracy, as opposed to republicanism.
Have you seen all the “We were robbed” and “the vote was rigged” videos that are swarming the internet now?
Scotland is way more socialist than England. Way more. In fact, if Scotland had become independent its quite possible that it would have cost the Labour party the next general election.
Not to much aware of it as surrounded by it at the moment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.