Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
 

What's new? The latest myff announcements


       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish News, Life and Society
Reluctant Hero

Flower of Scotland - Embarrassing

According to Findlay Calder, a prominent Scottish rugby player back in the day, the national anthem adopted by the Scottish rugby and football teams has become an embarrassing anti-English rant.

There is no doubt there will be one or two people who maintain an anti-English viewpoint.  However, for the majority I think the singing of Flower of Scotland and the booing of the English national anthem is just part and parcel of a rivalry that has been around for centuries.

I seem to recall our national anthem got drowned out at Wembley in 1999 as well.  Maybe it was because the first game was at Hampden  Laughing

http://www.sundayherald.com/news/...r_of_scotland_is_embarrassing.php
skip

when i read about this I immediately thought of the 1990 grand slam.
and a quick youtube search found finlay calder himself is singing it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzTcKf4zL1w

on the big occassion when its done right its a stirring song. simples.

scots spend too much time bashing themselves about supposedly bashing the english.
Stevie

Isn't crushing rebellious Scots an anti Scottish rant.

Viva la républica !

Anyway, I don't think our Saxon neighbours give a monkey's testicle what a bunch of Scottish rugby fans sing and I seriously doubt they even listen.  So, Finlay Calder may well be referring to his fellow team mates and that is then their personal decision to add venom or pride.

Personally, I think pride is better in the long run.
Luke P

Re: Flower of Scotland - Embarrassing

Reluctant Hero wrote:
According to Findlay Calder, a prominent Scottish rugby player back in the day, the national anthem adopted by the Scottish rugby and football teams has become an embarrassing anti-English rant.

There is no doubt there will be one or two people who maintain an anti-English viewpoint.  However, for the majority I think the singing of Flower of Scotland and the booing of the English national anthem is just part and parcel of a rivalry that has been around for centuries.

I seem to recall our national anthem got drowned out at Wembley in 1999 as well.  Maybe it was because the first game was at Hampden  Laughing

http://www.sundayherald.com/news/...r_of_scotland_is_embarrassing.php


Please drop the misconception that God Save the Queen is the English anthem. It is not. It is the British anthem and applies to Scotland too. You will notice Northern Ireland use it too and Scotland did until a few years back and the booing got too loud. Count yourselves (and Wales) very privileged that you're allowed your own Flower of Scotland - the English aren't - yet (I favour I vow to thee... personally).

So no, the booing has not been a feature of the rivalry for centuries. Flower of Scotland is only about 40 years old anyway.

Why worry about the legendary "rebellious Scots to crush" line? I assure you no English person knows the words to the national anthem - let alone  protestant propaganda from the 18th century.  P-leeez.
Dave Coull

Re: Flower of Scotland - Embarrassing

Luke P wrote:
(I favour I vow to thee... personally).
That's a dirge. I believe at some events some English fans have taken to singing William Blake's "Jerusalem". Which is, admittedly, a magnificent song. Far better than "Flower of Scotland", as a matter of fact.
Luke P wrote:
Count yourselves (and Wales) very privileged
I know this is a big thing to ask, considering your very first post was a lie, but be honest, Luke P, you're trying to stoke up Scottish Nationalist feeling, by telling us how privileged we are, aren't you?
Luke P

Re: Flower of Scotland - Embarrassing

Dave Coull wrote:
Luke P wrote:
(I favour I vow to thee... personally).
That's a dirge. I believe at some events some English fans have taken to singing William Blake's "Jerusalem". Which is, admittedly, a magnificent song. Far better than "Flower of Scotland", as a matter of fact.
Luke P wrote:
Count yourselves (and Wales) very privileged
I know this is a big thing to ask, considering your very first post was a lie, but be honest, Luke P, you're trying to stoke up Scottish Nationalist feeling, by telling us how privileged we are, aren't you?


No. It is worth recognising that Scotland gets preferential treatment in some areas - parliament, anthems, tuition fees... English people are starting to feel left out in the rain.

Jerusalem is used by the cricket team. Land of hope and glory at the Commonwealth games. This is more likely to make it as the official anthem.
Dave Coull

Re: Flower of Scotland - Embarrassing

Luke P wrote:
Count yourselves (and Wales) very privileged
I wrote:
I know this is a big thing to ask, considering your very first post was a lie, but be honest, Luke P, you're trying to stoke up Scottish Nationalist feeling, by telling us how privileged we are, aren't you?
Luke P wrote:
It is worth recognising that Scotland gets preferential treatment in some areas - parliament, anthems, tuition fees... English people are starting to feel left out in the rain.
Good. The more people in England feel like that, the weaker the United Kingdom becomes, and the closer we get to independence.
Stevie

Re: Flower of Scotland - Embarrassing

Luke P wrote:
No. It is worth recognising that Scotland gets preferential treatment in some areas - parliament, anthems, tuition fees... English people are starting to feel left out in the rain.


Ah well, at least they don't feel as if they've been pished on for centuries by their next door neighbours.

I agree with Dave, Jerusalem is a magnificent song; I wonder though at its use for encouraging people to go off and die in pointless warfare.

However, it's truly jolly decent of you to point out how well the Scots have done in this whole union thingy.  Thanks for that, some of us seem to forget, we are an ungrateful lot.

As ever, critique with a smile rather than a sneer.
Luke P

What can I say? That's back to persecution complex territory. You know what, the Romans pished on the Britons, then the Angles pished on the Britons, the Scots pished on the Picts, the Norse pished on the Scots, the Danes pished on the Saxons, the Scots pished on the Angles, the Saxons pished on the Danes and the Normans pished on everyone. The roundheads pished on the royalists, the protestants on the catholics and the catholics on the protestants and the protestants on the catholics again. That's history. If you just want independence that's fine, but there are some things Scotland doesn't need to complain about.
Luke P

Re: Flower of Scotland - Embarrassing

Dave Coull wrote:
The more people in England feel like that, the weaker the United Kingdom becomes, and the closer we get to independence.


You are quite correct and it is going to work eventually. English people are currently very unsure whether they want their own parliament, regional parliaments, English independence or what. Largely very strongly "British" before, "English' is coming back, as is English symbolism. If  McLabour have been operating under instruction from Brussels-central to undermine the union by provocation the tactic has worked admirably, and is working elsewhere in Europe too. As for the EU, and independence within it, I think that deserves a thread of its own...
Holebender

Luke P wrote:
What can I say? That's back to persecution complex territory. You know what, the Romans pished on the Britons, then the Angles pished on the Britons, the Scots pished on the Picts, the Norse pished on the Scots, the Danes pished on the Saxons, the Scots pished on the Angles, the Saxons pished on the Danes and the Normans pished on everyone. The roundheads pished on the royalists, the protestants on the catholics and the catholics on the protestants and the protestants on the catholics again. That's history. If you just want independence that's fine, but there are some things Scotland doesn't need to complain about.

Don't tell me... you don't do irony, do you?

You imply others have a persecution complex and then you go on to post a long list of supposed persecutions. Priceless! So's your stuff about those poor downtrodden English being left out in the rain; no persecution complex there, eh? McLabour... great stuff... all those Labour Jocks persecuting dear old Blighty... you couldn't make it up!
Stevie

Actually, 'God Save the Queen' is embarrassingly dull.

How anybody can make it through this almighty dirge without falling into a deep depression is in itself a remarkable feat of self will.
Fidget

How many verses to it are there?  Laughing
Stevie

One is too many.
Luke P

Holebender wrote:


You imply others have a persecution complex and then you go on to post a long list of supposed persecutions. Priceless! So's your stuff about those poor downtrodden English being left out in the rain; no persecution complex there, eh? McLabour... great stuff... all those Labour Jocks persecuting dear old Blighty... you couldn't make it up!


Blighty = slang term for Britain, not England. Britain still does include Scotland and probably will for a while longer until sea level rises chop Scotland in half.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blighty

I don't mind having Scots running Britain at all. I've said it before - it just irritates me when Scots are in the driving seat and still whinge about being run by English.
Luke P

Bravehand wrote:
Actually, 'God Save the Queen' is embarrassingly dull.

How anybody can make it through this almighty dirge without falling into a deep depression is in itself a remarkable feat of self will.


Too true.
Alasdair

Luke P wrote:
I don't mind having Scots running Britain at all. I've said it before - it just irritates me when Scots are in the driving seat and still whinge about being run by English.


What utter nonsense, you are actually aware of the make-up of parliament aren't you.  Even is ever Scottish MP supported a particular move it would take a fraction of the English MP's to block it, unless - dum-dum-dummm - it was actually supported by a majority of English MP's.

Don't give us this pish about Britain being run by scots.
Morph

I think the moaning Scots have a right to moan, last time i checked the oil money used in England as well as Scotland came from Scottish waters. If independant you wouldnt get a touch.

Or the Scots who paid poll tax when the English didn't.

Don't get angry about Scots running the country, get even give us our own parliament, kick us out we would hate that!
Luke P

Alasdair wrote:
Luke P wrote:
I don't mind having Scots running Britain at all. I've said it before - it just irritates me when Scots are in the driving seat and still whinge about being run by English.


What utter nonsense, you are actually aware of the make-up of parliament aren't you.  Even is ever Scottish MP supported a particular move it would take a fraction of the English MP's to block it, unless - dum-dum-dummm - it was actually supported by a majority of English MP's.

Don't give us this pish about Britain being run by scots.



It's not pish. The PM, chancellor and Home Sec are Scots - the three most important posts in the land. The speaker was a Scot also, till a wee while ago. Holyrood business is Holyrood business and English MPs have no say in Scotland. In national business yes they do, but you are just pointing out the demographic imbalance between England and Scotland. That can't be rectified until Scotland welcomes 20m immigrants or half of England dies of swine flu. In any case, when did MPs vote along English and Scottish lines EVER????
Luke P

Morph wrote:
I think the moaning Scots have a right to moan, last time i checked the oil money used in England as well as Scotland came from Scottish waters. If independant you wouldnt get a touch.

Or the Scots who paid poll tax when the English didn't.

Don't get angry about Scots running the country, get even give us our own parliament, kick us out we would hate that!


Please don't dream either you or I see a penny of said 'oil money'. We're all up to our ears in debt.

I think the Scots paid the poll tax for one year that England didn't. You make it sound like the potato famine.

Like I have repeated twice now, I am NOT angry about Scots running Westminster. They have every right and are quite as capable of screwing us over as any Englishman. Try reading more carefully.

I'm not an English nationalist, nor is it up to me to kick anybody out anyway. I just have an opinion.
Morph

But Luke thats the point- poll tax is the perfect example, if you look at the Lothian question you would think that poor English MPs are being strong handed by an unseen Scottish mafia in London.
Alasdair

Luke P wrote:
It's not pish. The PM, chancellor and Home Sec are Scots - the three most important posts in the land. The speaker was a Scot also, till a wee while ago. Holyrood business is Holyrood business and English MPs have no say in Scotland. In national business yes they do, but you are just pointing out the demographic imbalance between England and Scotland. That can't be rectified until Scotland welcomes 20m immigrants or half of England dies of swine flu. In any case, when did MPs vote along English and Scottish lines EVER????


It is utter rubbish.  The parliamentary arithmetic means that English MP's will always have a majority voice, and clearly given the different institutions north and south of the border and regional priorities it is highly likely that voting intentions will vary accordingly.

Maybe if MP's had more backbone and the whip less power it would be more obvious.  But to say that Westminster and the country is run by Scots is utter tosh.
Holebender

Luke P wrote:
In any case, when did MPs vote along English and Scottish lines EVER????

So why bother pointing out the origins of the holders of any given office at any given time?
mairead

I wholeheartedly agree with you Alasdair.
There are insufficient numbers of Scots, Welsh and N Irland MP's combined, to make any impact on what the majority of MP's (English) do or say Westminster is ruled by English MP's, and always has been.
Luke P

It's just demographics! 84% of the UK population live within the delimitations of the river Tweed and Offa's Dyke, referred to by some as 'England', the inhabitants' demonym being 'English'. These people have a right to 84% of the representation in parliament. They don't have it - they have about 81% of it. Fair enough - I'm not complaining. Personally I wouldn't have objected to reducing it a little more to reflect the greater per capita landmass of Scotland, but after devolution it is pointless and unfair.

On what basis can any minority grouping claim foul play for not being dominant? That would be a complete perversion of democracy and logic.

The East Anglians could be up in arms that their votes don't decide anything... as could the Northumbrians... or the people in my village... etc. (these latter groups, of course, not enjoying he luxury of home rule). Blacks could say white MPs always decide everything, but it wouldn't be right to have a black majority parliament when only 2% of the people are black; less so when there is a 'black parliament' to deal with black business outside Croydon. (for example)

Parliament is divided along party lines, not 'national' lines. Any notion of a pan-English political agenda in Westminster is nonsense (although it could emerge over the West Lothian question) as is any notion of a cohesive pan-Englishness although that may be forced by separatisms. The notion that any given Scottish MP represents you - because you are Scottish - is similarly nonsense. My local MP (in England) is Scottish but does as bad a job as anyone of representing me - actually he's quite decent for a Tory.

(you are right tho that the whips need got rid of)
Luke P

Holebender wrote:
Luke P wrote:
In any case, when did MPs vote along English and Scottish lines EVER????

So why bother pointing out the origins of the holders of any given office at any given time?


Because it's exactly the argument nationalists use all the time.
Alasdair

Luke P wrote:
Holebender wrote:
Luke P wrote:
In any case, when did MPs vote along English and Scottish lines EVER????

So why bother pointing out the origins of the holders of any given office at any given time?


Because it's exactly the argument nationalists use all the time.


What?! That the Scots run the uk ... I don't think it is [used by s-nats]
Luke P

Alasdair wrote:
Luke P wrote:
Holebender wrote:
Luke P wrote:
In any case, when did MPs vote along English and Scottish lines EVER????

So why bother pointing out the origins of the holders of any given office at any given time?


Because it's exactly the argument nationalists use all the time.


What?! That the Scots run the uk ... I don't think it is [used by s-nats]


You misunderstand. The argument is that there are not enough Scottish MPs at Westminster.
Holebender

Who argues that? Nationalists argue that there are too many Scottish MPs in Westminster; 59 too many!
mairead

Back on topic for a moment.
The words to Flower of Scotland are quite stirring, it's the singing of it by a large crowd that turns it in to a dirge.
Stevie

The words to 'Scots Wha Hae', by Robert Burns are stirring but the SNP sing it like it's a funeral march.

It's a marching tune, legend has it played as Bruce marched on the field of Bannockburn.

Scots Wha Hae

Scots, wha hae wi' Wallace bled,
Scots wham Bruce has often led,
Welcome to your gorie bed,
Or to Victorie!
Now's the day, and now's the hour;
See the front o' battle lour,
See approach proud Edward's pow'r
Chains and slaverie!

Wha will be a traitor knave?
Wha can fill a coward's grave?
Wha sae base as be a slave?
Let him turn and flee!
Wha, for Scotland's King and Law,
Freedom's sword will strongly draw,
Freeman stand, or Freeman fa',
Let him on wi, me!

By Oppression's woes and pains!
By your sons in servile chains!
We will drain our dearest veins,
But they shall be free!
Lay the proud Usurpers low!
Tyrants fall in every foe!
Liberty's in every blow!
Let us do or die!

ROBERT BURNS
mairead

Aye legend may have it that way, but it wasn't written for hundreds of years after Bannockburn.
I agree though, that like FoS it also gets turned into a dirge. Mind you the biggest dirge of all has to be GStQ.
A good marching and inoffensive song in my opinion is Scotland the Brave.
Stevie

Yeh, but it wasn't written by Robert Burns.

You say that the tune wasn't written 'for hundreds of years afterwards', where did you find that info?
mairead

Well It's my understanding that it was written By Robert Burns, long after Bannockburn.It is certainly included in his works in the old book of the complete works and songs of  Robert Burns which I havejust checked, and the correct title is "Bruce's Address to his Army at Bannockburn.
Holebender

Large numbers of Burns' songs are reworked and improved versions of earlier folk songs. They all carry Burns' name because of the work he did collecting the original songs and giving the benefit of his poetic genius but most were in existence in some form long before Burns.
Stevie

I was referring to the music, 'Hey tooti tooti' (I think that's the spelling) is the music reputedly played at Bannockburn.
Dave Coull

Bravehand wrote:
I was referring to the music, 'Hey tooti tooti' (I think that's the spelling) is the music reputedly played at Bannockburn.
Aye, as I understand it, the tune is several centuries older than Burns's words, and yes, there is a tradition going back centuries that it was the tune played as Bruce's troops marched to battle at Bannockburn. Although it might be difficult to conclusively prove this, it's a well-established tradition, about a tune that is many centuries old. And that would make it a marching song, with a considerably faster pace than the usual dirge-like modern rendition. Also, Burns's words are based on a tradition about Robert Bruce's pep talk to his troops immediately before the Battle of Bannockburn. The order of the words is Burns's, the rhyming of the words is Burns's, but there is a good chance that the sentiments really are Bruce's. Ancient traditional marching tune, Robert Bruce's words, reworked by Robert Burns, no other patriotic song has quite such an impressive pedigree.
Stevie

Aye David.
Aventinian

mairead wrote:
I wholeheartedly agree with you Alasdair.
There are insufficient numbers of Scots, Welsh and N Irland MP's combined, to make any impact on what the majority of MP's (English) do or say Westminster is ruled by English MP's, and always has been.


What utter rot. Is the UK ruled by white people? Is the UK ruled by heterosexuals? How about Christians?

No, of course not. The personal identity of an MP has no baring on his job.
babykitten

Aventinian wrote:
mairead wrote:
I wholeheartedly agree with you Alasdair.
There are insufficient numbers of Scots, Welsh and N Irland MP's combined, to make any impact on what the majority of MP's (English) do or say Westminster is ruled by English MP's, and always has been.


What utter rot. Is the UK ruled by white people? Is the UK ruled by heterosexuals? How about Christians?

No, of course not. The personal identity of an MP has no baring on his job.

An unfortunate typo given the behaviour of countless MPs over the years.
Aventinian

Holebender wrote:
Who argues that? Nationalists argue that there are too many Scottish MPs in Westminster; 59 too many!


Who are these nationalists?

I don't think any of them would be quite stupid enough to suggest that Scotland should not have representation in the UK Parliament whilst it is part of the UK. The SNP certainly doesn't believe that.
Holebender

Oh ffs! The argument is that Scotland should withdraw from the UK. At that point there would then be zero MPs from Scotland at Westminster. Why would anyone argue for increased representation at Westminster when the goal is to become independent of Westminster?

I thought you were a bit more subtle than that Aventinian; I am really surprised that I had to spell it out for you.

Duh!
Aventinian

Holebender wrote:
Oh ffs! The argument is that Scotland should withdraw from the UK.


Well it is of course in a UK context that the issue was being discussed, so your point was irrelevant at best.

Quote:
Why would anyone argue for increased representation at Westminster when the goal is to become independent of Westminster?


For the same reason they'd argue against having no representation at Westminster, presumably.
Holebender

Which is? You seem to believe it's a plausible argument, so what is this presumed reason?
chicmac

Luke P wrote:
It's just demographics! 84% of the UK population live within the delimitations of the river Tweed and Offa's Dyke, referred to by some as 'England', the inhabitants' demonym being 'English'. These people have a right to 84% of the representation in parliament. They don't have it - they have about 81% of it. Fair enough - I'm not complaining. Personally I wouldn't have objected to reducing it a little more to reflect the greater per capita landmass of Scotland, but after devolution it is pointless and unfair.

On what basis can any minority grouping claim foul play for not being dominant? That would be a complete perversion of democracy and logic.

The East Anglians could be up in arms that their votes don't decide anything... as could the Northumbrians... or the people in my village... etc. (these latter groups, of course, not enjoying he luxury of home rule). Blacks could say white MPs always decide everything, but it wouldn't be right to have a black majority parliament when only 2% of the people are black; less so when there is a 'black parliament' to deal with black business outside Croydon. (for example)

Parliament is divided along party lines, not 'national' lines. Any notion of a pan-English political agenda in Westminster is nonsense (although it could emerge over the West Lothian question) as is any notion of a cohesive pan-Englishness although that may be forced by separatisms. The notion that any given Scottish MP represents you - because you are Scottish - is similarly nonsense. My local MP (in England) is Scottish but does as bad a job as anyone of representing me - actually he's quite decent for a Tory.

(you are right tho that the whips need got rid of)


In normal international relations, matters requiring representation by each nation do NOT disadvantage a contributing nation's participation simply because it happens to have a smaller population.  

The unique perspective offered by each nation is a viable and very useful thing in its own right and much more important to the proceedings than how many people happen to live within its borders.

Population size is largely an arbitrary thing, a mere matter of luck, based mostly on geographical area, fertility and resources.  However, the benchmarks, customs and mores of a nation combine to give one, very valuable, unique perspective.

If international matters are to be weighted by population, such that more populous nations have a pro rata right to their perspective, then China and India will effectively decide everything.

To say that the larger population of England must count more within the Union, but not that of Germany, China or India in regard to EU or World affairs is totally inconsistent.

Yet that does appear to be the position of Brit/Eng Nats.

Its a bit like saying fat people should have a say 1.7 vote whereas thin people only a 0,7 vote.
chicmac

Who moved this into Life and Society?

The National anthem has always been a political issue and this thread was accepted as such until my post, which was most definitely political.

Political censorship by relocation?

I will start a new thread in political.
Luke P

chicmac wrote:
Luke P wrote:
It's just demographics! 84% of the UK population live within the delimitations of the river Tweed and Offa's Dyke, referred to by some as 'England', the inhabitants' demonym being 'English'. These people have a right to 84% of the representation in parliament. They don't have it - they have about 81% of it. Fair enough - I'm not complaining. Personally I wouldn't have objected to reducing it a little more to reflect the greater per capita landmass of Scotland, but after devolution it is pointless and unfair.

On what basis can any minority grouping claim foul play for not being dominant? That would be a complete perversion of democracy and logic.

The East Anglians could be up in arms that their votes don't decide anything... as could the Northumbrians... or the people in my village... etc. (these latter groups, of course, not enjoying he luxury of home rule). Blacks could say white MPs always decide everything, but it wouldn't be right to have a black majority parliament when only 2% of the people are black; less so when there is a 'black parliament' to deal with black business outside Croydon. (for example)

Parliament is divided along party lines, not 'national' lines. Any notion of a pan-English political agenda in Westminster is nonsense (although it could emerge over the West Lothian question) as is any notion of a cohesive pan-Englishness although that may be forced by separatisms. The notion that any given Scottish MP represents you - because you are Scottish - is similarly nonsense. My local MP (in England) is Scottish but does as bad a job as anyone of representing me - actually he's quite decent for a Tory.

(you are right tho that the whips need got rid of)


In normal international relations, matters requiring representation by each nation do NOT disadvantage a contributing nation's participation simply because it happens to have a smaller population.  

The unique perspective offered by each nation is a viable and very useful thing in its own right and much more important to the proceedings than how many people happen to live within its borders.

Population size is largely an arbitrary thing, a mere matter of luck, based mostly on geographical area, fertility and resources.  However, the benchmarks, customs and mores of a nation combine to give one, very valuable, unique perspective.

If international matters are to be weighted by population, such that more populous nations have a pro rata right to their perspective, then China and India will effectively decide everything.

To say that the larger population of England must count more within the Union, but not that of Germany, China or India in regard to EU or World affairs is totally inconsistent.

Yet that does appear to be the position of Brit/Eng Nats.

Its a bit like saying fat people should have a say 1.7 vote whereas thin people only a 0,7 vote.



By your logic am I to assume you think Scotland should have 200 MPs, England 200 MPs, Wales 200 MPs, and Northern Ireland 200 MPs? Is that your idea of democratic representation?

This is nothing to do with international relations! This is an internal matter. You are forgetting the UK is a sovereign nation and Scotland is not independent yet.

It's a cracked idea man.
kevin04

As for the Song, I feel it can be hit and miss sometimes, but that's mostly to do with the Band that are playing it.

I think, I prefer the original version, stripped down and folky, but It also nice hearing it with the Pipes and especially at Rugby with the whole team singing it, it's fantastic.

Caledonia - is a great option for a national anthem if they decide to change the Flower of Scotland. The lyrics are fantasitc, heart-warming and tell the story of how most of us feel about returning home after a period away.
Jimbo

Quote:
Caledonia - is a great option for a national anthem if they decide to change the Flower of Scotland.



Link
Alasdair

I hate these over produced versions of otherwise great folk songs ... It's not how they're 'meant to be'.
Aventinian

kevin04 wrote:
As for the Song, I feel it can be hit and miss sometimes, but that's mostly to do with the Band that are playing it.

I think, I prefer the original version, stripped down and folky, but It also nice hearing it with the Pipes and especially at Rugby with the whole team singing it, it's fantastic.

Caledonia - is a great option for a national anthem if they decide to change the Flower of Scotland. The lyrics are fantasitc, heart-warming and tell the story of how most of us feel about returning home after a period away.


Any chance of something with a bit of history rather than replacing some two-generations-ago folk song with another? It's like the United States declaring their national anthem to be Don McLean's American Pie.
Jimbo

Alasdair wrote:
I hate these over produced versions of otherwise great folk songs ... It's not how they're 'meant to be'.


Aye, you're right, Alasdair.

They should have recorded her singing in the bath.  Laughing
Jimbo

Aventinian wrote:
Quote:
Any chance of something with a bit of history rather than replacing some two-generations-ago folk song with another? It's like the United States declaring their national anthem to be Don McLean's American Pie.


Agreed.

Scots Wha Hae would be my choice.
Alasdair

Jimbo wrote:
Alasdair wrote:
I hate these over produced versions of otherwise great folk songs ... It's not how they're 'meant to be'.


Aye, you're right, Alasdair.

They should have recorded her singing in the bath.  Laughing


... or maybe the shower Embarassed
Stevie

I hadn't realised Scotland had put an entry into the Eurovision song contest but the girl has a nice voice.

Song is far to complicated lyrically for a national anthem.

Still like the original version very much though.

       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish News, Life and Society
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Our Scotland Hit Counter Scottish Top Site - Topsites Our Scotland Forums Critical Acclaim ~ Politically Progressive Top Sites View Site Stats Scottish Politics