|
Post by jen on Apr 19, 2024 20:48:17 GMT
Your post implied that having Germans was...somehow cheating? Whereas my impression is that the people I referred to would be rather happier to be aligned with Germans (and many other nationalities) than purely being aligned with the English. Of course it wasn't cheating. Obviously Germans would fight to put a German on the British throne rather than anybody British. And naturally I find it hilarious that all British monarchists still love to doff their cap to their German conquerors. And of course you are right, most Scots would rather see themselves aligned with prosperous democratic European nations. Where is Westminster going to go? The Nordic route? Or more the Orban way?
|
|
|
Post by eor on Apr 19, 2024 20:48:42 GMT
(for anyone watching in real time, the f**k is jib doing with the legs pictures?)
|
|
|
Post by jen on Apr 19, 2024 20:49:41 GMT
Indeed, Scots and English on both sides, But Germans were only on the side of YOUR monarchy. Not my king. 'Germans were only on the side of YOUR monarchy' - What on earth is that supposed to mean? For starters there was no German state then but so what? Are you saying you're anti German? Not sure even your sometime sparring partner mercian would admit to that these days. I thought you were pro EU? Well if you don't get it, you don't get it.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,275
|
Post by pjw1961 on Apr 19, 2024 20:52:04 GMT
Given the entire UK ran much better under Labour than the preceding and following Tory governments, I should say it made a great deal of difference to Scotland. For one thing, there would have been no Scottish Parliament for the SNP to run without a Labour government in Westminster setting it up in the first place. Thank you very much Scots Labour voters for your significant contribution to that successful period of government. Except there would have been no devolution without the UK Labour fear of Scottish independence. So apart from that reactive policy ( strongly opposed by many in the Labour Party including MPs representing Scottish constituencies)what policies were particularly responsive to Scottish Labour MPs. Your statement is flat wrong. The Labour commitment was cast-iron and delivered in line with the 1997 manifesto, which said: "As soon as possible after the election, we will enact legislation to allow the people of Scotland and Wales to vote in separate referendums on our proposals, which will be set out in white papers. These referendums will take place not later than the autumn of 1997. A simple majority of those voting in each referendum will be the majority required. Popular endorsement will strengthen the legitimacy of our proposals and speed their passage through Parliament. For Scotland we propose the creation of a parliament with law-making powers, firmly based on the agreement reached in the Scottish Constitutional Convention, including defined and limited financial powers to vary revenue and elected by an additional member system. In the Scottish referendum we will seek separate endorsement of the proposal to create a parliament, and of the proposal to give it defined and limited financial powers to vary revenue. The Scottish parliament will extend democratic control over the responsibilities currently exercised administratively by the Scottish Office." Labour had a huge majority and no one could force them to do it.
|
|
|
Post by jen on Apr 19, 2024 21:01:17 GMT
I disagree. CSJ is a far right think tank funded by the same fascist money what paid for Brexit. A bit like the fascist Tax Payers Alliance. However, I agree that Sunak is playing to the Nazi gallery. Of course he is, he has no arguments based on facts. Conservatives (it would have been a small "c", but unfortunately was at the beginning of a sentence) deserve better than this corrupt, inept, racist, homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic and ableist TOTAL SCUM.It seems that Starmer is seeking to appeal to this demographic. There's no need to be mealy-mouthed. Tell us what you really think. I dunno, I might have missed some stuff out. And to be fair, your tribe, whilst they do disgust me, have yet to be shown to be in general corrupt, unlike the current iteration of the Tories. But maybe that's only because you haven't really had the chance yet? After all, your Fuehrer Farage turned out to be a totally dishonest cunt, of the very worst kind. You are, no doubt, aware of what happened when he was appointed to the EU Fisheries council? And you voted for that?
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,071
|
Post by domjg on Apr 19, 2024 21:09:21 GMT
(for anyone watching in real time, the f**k is jib doing with the legs pictures?) Very inappropriate.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 5,887
|
Post by neilj on Apr 19, 2024 21:09:23 GMT
Let's remember for the last couple of weeks tories have been demanding an investigation into Rayner
|
|
|
Post by mark61 on Apr 19, 2024 21:11:26 GMT
Jeez! this place has jumped the shark tonight! JiB did you mean to post that on here or on another site you like! Jen have you ever thought of posting without shouting? Your style doesn't encourage engagement does it? and if you don't want that why are you posting on here?
|
|
|
Post by eor on Apr 19, 2024 21:19:56 GMT
(for anyone watching in real time, the f**k is jib doing with the legs pictures?) Very inappropriate. I was referring to the fact the picture changed at least once. I wasn't sure if there was some coded meaning we were supposed to infer from that, or whether he's just...having a moment.
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,071
|
Post by domjg on Apr 19, 2024 21:20:07 GMT
'Germans were only on the side of YOUR monarchy' - What on earth is that supposed to mean? For starters there was no German state then but so what? Are you saying you're anti German? Not sure even your sometime sparring partner mercian would admit to that these days. I thought you were pro EU? Well if you don't get it, you don't get it. European Royal houses at that time, as you're no doubt aware, often occupied positions far from 'home' were often in fact almost 'for sale' when there was a vacancy somewhere and all intermarried with each other. It doesn't need pointing out but there would not have been anyone in 'Germany' at that time plotting to put a 'German' on the English throne. There was as I'm sure you're aware no such thing as Germany then just lots of small kingdoms the inhabitants of which would have only had a vague notion of their 'Germanness'.
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,021
|
Post by oldnat on Apr 19, 2024 21:34:10 GMT
Except there would have been no devolution without the UK Labour fear of Scottish independence. So apart from that reactive policy ( strongly opposed by many in the Labour Party including MPs representing Scottish constituencies)what policies were particularly responsive to Scottish Labour MPs. Your statement is flat wrong. The Labour commitment was cast-iron and delivered in line with the 1997 manifesto, which said: "As soon as possible after the election, we will enact legislation to allow the people of Scotland and Wales to vote in separate referendums on our proposals, which will be set out in white papers. These referendums will take place not later than the autumn of 1997. A simple majority of those voting in each referendum will be the majority required. Popular endorsement will strengthen the legitimacy of our proposals and speed their passage through Parliament. For Scotland we propose the creation of a parliament with law-making powers, firmly based on the agreement reached in the Scottish Constitutional Convention, including defined and limited financial powers to vary revenue and elected by an additional member system. In the Scottish referendum we will seek separate endorsement of the proposal to create a parliament, and of the proposal to give it defined and limited financial powers to vary revenue. The Scottish parliament will extend democratic control over the responsibilities currently exercised administratively by the Scottish Office." Labour had a huge majority and no one could force them to do it. hireton is correct.
You are correct in crediting Donald Dewar with devolution, but that was due to his persuading Blair (who wasn't keen on it, but had doubts about winning the election,) that not guaranteeing devolution would mean the SNP making ground at Labour's expense. As it turned out, he didn't need any Scots Labour MPs to govern, but he wasn't to know that.
The Labour Party in Scotland was deeply divided over the idea, but the balance shifted within the membership and the unions, both due to the frustration caused by Scottish affairs being decided by Thatcher's Tory government - resulting in the Constitutional Convention and the Claim of Right - and the fear of further SNP progress. The majority of Labour's Scots Westminster MPs were not in favour of devolution, but most went with it, to enhance their electoral chances, though great credit goes to those who were passionate supporters of it - eg Dewar, McLeish and Canavan.
The manifesto that you quote was the end point created by Labour's fear of SNP growth, not the starting point of the process. It was a victory for those of us in the Labour Party in Scotland who were fighting for increased Scottish autonomy - either as a permanent arrangement, or as progress towards what crossbat11 somewhat disparagingly refers to as a "destination".
Of course, given his huge majority, Blair could simply then have ignored the guarantee he had given to Scotland - but the rebellion that doing so would have produced would have been significant.
|
|
|
Post by chrisc on Apr 19, 2024 21:40:05 GMT
Your post implied that having Germans was...somehow cheating? Whereas my impression is that the people I referred to would be rather happier to be aligned with Germans (and many other nationalities) than purely being aligned with the English. Of course it wasn't cheating. Obviously Germans would fight to put a German on the British throne rather than anybody British. And naturally I find it hilarious that all British monarchists still love to doff their cap to their German conquerors. And of course you are right, most Scots would rather see themselves aligned with prosperous democratic European nations. Where is Westminster going to go? The Nordic route? Or more the Orban way? The Jacobite rebellion(s) was as much (or more) a Catholic / Protestant thing than an English/Scots one. An attempt to put a catholic back on the British throne and restore the absolute monarchy. Who needs that Parliament thing anyway? James and his son, Bonnie Prince Charlie, seem strange heros for an anti-fascist? . By the way I don’t think any “Germans”fought at Culloden. In fact Bonnie Prince Charlie got so far as the British army was distracted fighting in the war of the Austrian succession (ironically fighting with Hanoverian Protestants to defend the rights of a Catholic woman to become the first female Holy Roman Emperor - the formidable Maria Theresa). But of course Maria was anti French so that trumped her Catholicism…..
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,021
|
Post by oldnat on Apr 19, 2024 21:57:39 GMT
Of course it wasn't cheating. Obviously Germans would fight to put a German on the British throne rather than anybody British. And naturally I find it hilarious that all British monarchists still love to doff their cap to their German conquerors. And of course you are right, most Scots would rather see themselves aligned with prosperous democratic European nations. Where is Westminster going to go? The Nordic route? Or more the Orban way? The Jacobite rebellion(s) was as much (or more) a Catholic / Protestant thing than an English/Scots one. An attempt to put a catholic back on the British throne and restore the absolute monarchy. Who needs that Parliament thing anyway? James and his son, Bonnie Prince Charlie, seem strange heros for an anti-fascist? . By the way I don’t think any “Germans”fought at Culloden. In fact Bonnie Prince Charlie got so far as the British army was distracted fighting in the war of the Austrian succession (ironically fighting with Hanoverian Protestants to defend the rights of a Catholic woman to become the first female Holy Roman Emperor - the formidable Maria Theresa). But of course Maria was anti French so that trumped her Catholicism….. That's also an over-simplification! In terms of religious affiliation, Episcopalians also supported the Jacobite cause against Presbyterian domination. There was also the traditional resentment in the Highlands against Lowland ways being imposed on them. The failure of the Union to yet have delivered much in the way of benefit to Scotland, while Scots were paying increased taxes to service England's large national debt, incurred for naval expenditure to expand their Empire was also a factor.
That the UK state faced an existential threat obviously meant that it mobilised all its resources to put the rebellion down. That wasn't an "English" thing, despite romantic Scots nationalists often wanting to put it in those terms. States today still resort to extraordinary measures when faced with existential threats.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,275
|
Post by pjw1961 on Apr 19, 2024 22:22:36 GMT
Devolution happened. Labour did it. A historical fact. You and Hireton need to get over the fact it was Labour and stop creating hypothetical "yeah buts ...". Scottish independence hasn't happened and Labour won't introduce it, so plenty of room for campaigning on that.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Apr 19, 2024 22:24:33 GMT
There's no need to be mealy-mouthed. Tell us what you really think. I dunno, I might have missed some stuff out. And to be fair, your tribe, whilst they do disgust me, have yet to be shown to be in general corrupt, unlike the current iteration of the Tories. But maybe that's only because you haven't really had the chance yet? After all, your Fuehrer Farage turned out to be a totally dishonest cunt, of the very worst kind. You are, no doubt, aware of what happened when he was appointed to the EU Fisheries council? And you voted for that? I'm not sure what you mean by 'your tribe'. I'm not a member of any political party and don't usually finally make up my mind who to vote for until I'm in the polling booth. If you have something to say about Mr Farage it would be helpful if you could give a link to something that would back up your allegations. Preferably not from some loony-left site, but something sensible. And by the way, George 1st was the senior Protestant descendant of James VI of Scotland, and the monarch had to be (and still does) have to be a Protestant whether we like it or not. Also of course if we go back far enough most of us came from what is now Germany anyway, just a bit longer ago. Just think, you might even have a taint of Anglo-Saxon blood yourself!
|
|
|
Post by chrisc on Apr 19, 2024 22:32:22 GMT
The Jacobite rebellion(s) was as much (or more) a Catholic / Protestant thing than an English/Scots one. An attempt to put a catholic back on the British throne and restore the absolute monarchy. Who needs that Parliament thing anyway? James and his son, Bonnie Prince Charlie, seem strange heros for an anti-fascist? . By the way I don’t think any “Germans”fought at Culloden. In fact Bonnie Prince Charlie got so far as the British army was distracted fighting in the war of the Austrian succession (ironically fighting with Hanoverian Protestants to defend the rights of a Catholic woman to become the first female Holy Roman Emperor - the formidable Maria Theresa). But of course Maria was anti French so that trumped her Catholicism….. That's also an over-simplification! In terms of religious affiliation, Episcopalians also supported the Jacobite cause against Presbyterian domination. There was also the traditional resentment in the Highlands against Lowland ways being imposed on them. The failure of the Union to yet have delivered much in the way of benefit to Scotland, while Scots were paying increased taxes to service England's large national debt, incurred for naval expenditure to expand their Empire was also a factor.
That the UK state faced an existential threat obviously meant that it mobilised all its resources to put the rebellion down. That wasn't an "English" thing, despite romantic Scots nationalists often wanting to put it in those terms. States today still resort to extraordinary measures when faced with existential threats.I am surprised that you of all people are suggesting the UK existed as a state in 1745. Have you forgotten about the Irish? I agree the Jacobites weren’t just Catholics in 1745, but the leadership of that rebellion was and it certainly threw the Protestants and the Highlanders under the proverbial bus. I think historians generally don’t feel that the Jacobite rebellion was close to becoming an existential threat to Great Britain, especially as it was put down at the same time as Great Britain was fighting on many fronts during the war of the Austrian succession. Without the French assisting to a much greater extent it was never likely to succeed. [edit] and it could be argued the French also threw the Scots under the bus by promising aid and never really delivering in requisite force. Then and in many other periods of history].
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Apr 19, 2024 22:52:13 GMT
I must say that jen's rants rather back up the theory that several of us have that there is little difference in practice between extreme left and right - that the usual left-right axis is more like a circle or some variation, where the extremes are close together while democratic parties are on the other side of the circle. One common factor is the total intolerance of different views, which often leads to mass murder of their own people if they ever get into power as well as external wars. Indeed I would go so far as to say that the avowed anti-fascist jen displays more fascist tendencies than anyone else on the board.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Apr 19, 2024 22:59:35 GMT
(for anyone watching in real time, the f**k is jib doing with the legs pictures?) My guess was that he was trying to lighten the tone. A bit like my gran about 65 years ago when there was a fierce family row going on during a car journey with my parents, my uncle and aunt and my 3 cousins. She suddenly said "Look at the horses in the field!" and everyone laughed and stopped rowing. It's been a family phrase ever since when things get a bit tense.
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,021
|
Post by oldnat on Apr 19, 2024 23:14:20 GMT
Devolution happened. Labour did it. A historical fact. You and Hireton need to get over the fact it was Labour and stop creating hypothetical "yeah buts ...". Scottish independence hasn't happened and Labour won't introduce it, so plenty of room for campaigning on that. Of course Labour enacted devolution. No one denies that. There are no hypothetical "yeah buts ...". Your claim was that hireton was wrong to explain why that came about. He (and I) are correct, and your quotation of the 1997 manifesto did nothing to contradict that.
I agree that UKLabour won't enact Scottish independence, since it is committed to the continuation of the GB state (though not necessarily to the UK one). There are many obvious reasons why a British/UK state would want to avoid its existence being ended.
What I have never seen from you, or anyone supporting the continuation of the UK Union, is why Scotland is best served by being governed from Westminster (whether in or out of the EU) rather than being like Denmark - an independent member of the wider (and better) European Union.
So the campaigning will go on, regardless of the strategies adopted by a state under existential threat.
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,021
|
Post by oldnat on Apr 19, 2024 23:18:45 GMT
That's also an over-simplification! In terms of religious affiliation, Episcopalians also supported the Jacobite cause against Presbyterian domination. There was also the traditional resentment in the Highlands against Lowland ways being imposed on them. The failure of the Union to yet have delivered much in the way of benefit to Scotland, while Scots were paying increased taxes to service England's large national debt, incurred for naval expenditure to expand their Empire was also a factor.
That the UK state faced an existential threat obviously meant that it mobilised all its resources to put the rebellion down. That wasn't an "English" thing, despite romantic Scots nationalists often wanting to put it in those terms. States today still resort to extraordinary measures when faced with existential threats. I am surprised that you of all people are suggesting the UK existed as a state in 1745. Have you forgotten about the Irish? I agree the Jacobites weren’t just Catholics in 1745, but the leadership of that rebellion was and it certainly threw the Protestants and the Highlanders under the proverbial bus. I think historians generally don’t feel that the Jacobite rebellion was close to becoming an existential threat to Great Britain, especially as it was put down at the same time as Great Britain was fighting on many fronts during the war of the Austrian succession. Without the French assisting to a much greater extent it was never likely to succeed. [edit] and it could be argued the French also threw the Scots under the bus by promising aid and never really delivering in requisite force. Then and in many other periods of history]. The state was the United Kingdom of Great Britain (with that King also King of Ireland).
Later it became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Later still it became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Edit : What on earth does "it certainly threw the Protestants and the Highlanders under the proverbial bus" mean? Don't you understand the nature of religious conflict in Scotland at the time? A huge part of the Jacobite army came from the Episcopalian areas of the North East. Surely you comprehend that Episcopalians were also Protestant? It simply makes no sense to talk of Protestants being a cohesive group in 18th century Scotland.
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,021
|
Post by oldnat on Apr 19, 2024 23:30:20 GMT
(for anyone watching in real time, the f**k is jib doing with the legs pictures?) My guess was that he was trying to lighten the tone. A bit like my gran about 65 years ago when there was a fierce family row going on during a car journey with my parents, my uncle and aunt and my 3 cousins. She suddenly said "Look at the horses in the field!" and everyone laughed and stopped rowing. It's been a family phrase ever since when things get a bit tense. You had to row your car? Did everyone take their turn at the oars?
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,542
|
Post by Danny on Apr 19, 2024 23:42:33 GMT
The state was the United Kingdom of Great Britain (with that King also King of Ireland). Later it became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Later still it became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. But judging from old books, it seems it was always colloquially known as England by the English anyway. England rules the United Kingdom of Great Britain and always has.
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,021
|
Post by oldnat on Apr 19, 2024 23:49:07 GMT
The state was the United Kingdom of Great Britain (with that King also King of Ireland). Later it became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Later still it became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. But judging from old books, it seems it was always colloquially known as England by the English anyway. England rules the United Kingdom of Great Britain and always has. You might say that. I couldn't possibly comment.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Apr 20, 2024 0:05:40 GMT
The state was the United Kingdom of Great Britain (with that King also King of Ireland). Later it became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Later still it became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. But judging from old books, it seems it was always colloquially known as England by the English anyway. England rules the United Kingdom of Great Britain and always has. It depends how old you mean. In the 17th and 18th century there was an attempt to use the terms 'North Britain' and 'South Britain' to replace Scotland and England, including in some royal proclamations.
|
|
|
Post by jen on Apr 20, 2024 2:33:10 GMT
Of course it wasn't cheating. Obviously Germans would fight to put a German on the British throne rather than anybody British. And naturally I find it hilarious that all British monarchists still love to doff their cap to their German conquerors. And of course you are right, most Scots would rather see themselves aligned with prosperous democratic European nations. Where is Westminster going to go? The Nordic route? Or more the Orban way? The Jacobite rebellion(s) was as much (or more) a Catholic / Protestant thing than an English/Scots one. An attempt to put a catholic back on the British throne and restore the absolute monarchy. Who needs that Parliament thing anyway? James and his son, Bonnie Prince Charlie, seem strange heros for an anti-fascist? . By the way I don’t think any “Germans”fought at Culloden. In fact Bonnie Prince Charlie got so far as the British army was distracted fighting in the war of the Austrian succession (ironically fighting with Hanoverian Protestants to defend the rights of a Catholic woman to become the first female Holy Roman Emperor - the formidable Maria Theresa). But of course Maria was anti French so that trumped her Catholicism….. Errrrr.... did I say the Bonnie Prince was a hero? I'm awfully sorry if I did... But I didn't, did I? Stop making things up. And while there was no German nation at the time, there was very much a concept of German culture, as I am sure you are aware...
|
|
|
Post by jen on Apr 20, 2024 2:41:12 GMT
I must say that jen 's rants rather back up the theory that several of us have that there is little difference in practice between extreme left and right - that the usual left-right axis is more like a circle or some variation, where the extremes are close together while democratic parties are on the other side of the circle. One common factor is the total intolerance of different views, which often leads to mass murder of their own people if they ever get into power as well as external wars. Indeed I would go so far as to say that the avowed anti-fascist jen displays more fascist tendencies than anyone else on the board. Hahahahaha! You are so funny! And just because I oppose fascism you, who doesn't even understand coffee, thinks I am a leftie, hahahaha! You should get around a bit more (but probably too late for that, sadly...) Here's a great idea, buy yourself a dictionary, and look up the words "fascism", "woke", and "americano"...
|
|
|
Post by jen on Apr 20, 2024 3:21:38 GMT
I dunno, I might have missed some stuff out. And to be fair, your tribe, whilst they do disgust me, have yet to be shown to be in general corrupt, unlike the current iteration of the Tories. But maybe that's only because you haven't really had the chance yet? After all, your Fuehrer Farage turned out to be a totally dishonest cunt, of the very worst kind. You are, no doubt, aware of what happened when he was appointed to the EU Fisheries council? And you voted for that? I'm not sure what you mean by 'your tribe'. I'm not a member of any political party and don't usually finally make up my mind who to vote for until I'm in the polling booth. If you have something to say about Mr Farage it would be helpful if you could give a link to something that would back up your allegations. Preferably not from some loony-left site, but something sensible. And by the way, George 1st was the senior Protestant descendant of James VI of Scotland, and the monarch had to be (and still does) have to be a Protestant whether we like it or not. Also of course if we go back far enough most of us came from what is now Germany anyway, just a bit longer ago. Just think, you might even have a taint of Anglo-Saxon blood yourself! I have never denied the Anglo-Saxon background in my family. Why would I? Whoever my ancestors were is of no relevance to anything whatsoever, surely? And yes, the monarch now has to be Protestant, but at the time the Act of Settlement of 1701 was rather made up on the fly. Whatever, I don't care, choose whoever you like to be your king... Though... an interesting constitutional question... the Westminster government signed up to the Perth Agreement, as they are entitled to under the English constitution. But other parts of the UK have other constitutional arrangements. As I understand it, sovereignty in Scotland is the gift of "the people in Scotland", and therefore the Westminster parliament has no say as to the Scottish monarch. And as for dishonest lying Nigel, since you won't believe loony leftie rags like the FT, why not look it up yourself? I'll give you a starter... how many EU Fishery Committee meetings did lying Nigel attend? It's in the public domain. For how many did he claim expenses? And who claimed to be defending our fishermen, but couldn't be arsed to negotiate on their behalf? And which traitor lied and lied about it in public? I totally understand why many people think that Nigel the liar belongs in the current Tory party. And as I have said many times, conservative people deserve better representation.
|
|
|
Post by jen on Apr 20, 2024 3:26:40 GMT
Well if you don't get it, you don't get it. European Royal houses at that time, as you're no doubt aware, often occupied positions far from 'home' were often in fact almost 'for sale' when there was a vacancy somewhere and all intermarried with each other. It doesn't need pointing out but there would not have been anyone in 'Germany' at that time plotting to put a 'German' on the English throne. There was as I'm sure you're aware no such thing as Germany then just lots of small kingdoms the inhabitants of which would have only had a vague notion of their 'Germanness'. Like I said...
|
|
|
Post by moby on Apr 20, 2024 4:50:31 GMT
(for anyone watching in real time, the f**k is jib doing with the legs pictures?) My guess was that he was trying to lighten the tone. A bit like my gran about 65 years ago when there was a fierce family row going on during a car journey with my parents, my uncle and aunt and my 3 cousins. She suddenly said "Look at the horses in the field!" and everyone laughed and stopped rowing. It's been a family phrase ever since when things get a bit tense. I think jib may have been hinting about his theory again regarding the sudden appearance of a sock puppet on the forum.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,038
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Apr 20, 2024 5:38:30 GMT
domjg "WTF? I thought that was an advert. This place seems to be even more mental than usual this evening." If you could see the rest of the photo It would be Nick Clegg, Danny Alexander and David Cameron and then it would all make sense 😂
|
|