Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1096

The Tory-led administration on Angus Council, with the support of the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats, is seeking to remove the Saltires which have flown from county buildings in all Angus towns for longer than the lifetime of some younger voters. This is a politically-motivated move, because they identify the Saltire as being the SNP flag. Now, of course, the Saltire is NOT the flag of the SNP, it belongs to all of us. The "non-political" thing to do would have been for the Tories, LibDems, and Labourites to say "it's OUR flag too". By seeking to take down the Saltires, THEY have made this a political issue.

In response to this attempt to take down the Saltire, a "Save Our Saltire" campaign has been formed. This is NOT run by the SNP, but is non-party-political. We will be on the streets of every town in Angus tomorrow, Saturday the 29th September, seeking public support. I personally would have preferred to be in Montrose, but there were plenty of folk to cover Montrose and not enough for Brechin. If anybody wants to help, please e-mail me at davecoull@btinternet.com

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1096

Although a lot of folk in the county of Angus are displeased about the decision of the Tory-led administration, with the support of the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats, to remove the Saltires which have flown from municipal buildings in all Angus towns for longer than the lifetime of some younger voters, the initiative for the Save Our Saltire campaign came from nineteen year old Carrie Ogilvie from Montrose. Some supporters of her non-party-political initiative were on the streets of Montrose, Arbroath, Forfar, Carnoustie, Kirriemuir, and Brechin yesterday, asking people to sign a "Save Our Saltire" petition. The response in Arbroath was particularly good, with Montrose also excellent. Brechin less so, but that may be partly due to the lack of a "focus". In Brechin there were just two of us, myself and and Raymond, and since Raymond is somewhat handicapped it was in fact just myself collecting signatures while Raymond waved mini-Saltires and handed them out. There is no doubt we could have collected a lot more signatures if we'd had a few more volunteers. For instance, I saw a group of football supporters hurrying to the Brechin versus Raith Rovers match, and managed to get one of them to sign. They were in a hurry, but if we'd had a couple more folk with signature sheets on clipboards, instead of just me, we could have got that whole group to sign. Maybe we could have collected more signatures if our available manpower had all been concentrated in Arbroath and Montrose, but we wanted to be able to say that we had signatures from every town in Angus. Nevertheless, adding all of these towns together, a few thousand signatures were in fact collected in just a couple of hours on one day. That shows the strength of feeling about this issue. The petitions will be presented to Angus Council later this week. If they don't change their tune, then the next stage could be going around chapping on doors collecting signatures, rather than just on the streets. If we do have to do that, it would be good if we could have some more volunteers!

agentmancuso · Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 6:36 pm Post subject:

Why does it matter?
_________________
Liberty does not mean all good things, or the absence of all evils
Hayek

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1096

Agentmancuso asked "why does it matter?"

It probably doesn't matter to you, or to a lot of other people, and I won't try to persuade you that it should. It matters to me for a number of reasons. First of all, I was born in Angus, raised in Angus, started full time work aged fifteen in Angus, I named my son Angus, and I live now in the county of Angus. That gives me a certain personal stake in this.

According to legend, which does appear to have at least a certain amount of basis in historical fact, the Saltire, the flag of Saint Andrew, the white diagonal cross on a blue background, comes to us from Angus. To be precise, from Angus Mac Feargus, King of Alba, who is said to have seen this peculiar cloud formation against a blue sky right before a battle with Athelstane, King of Northumbria, and pledged that if successfull he would give thanks to Saint Andrew, and make this the symbol of Alba.

The heartland of King Angus was, of course, the county which still bears his name. The symbol which he adopted has flown over the county of Angus for the entire lifetimes of some of our younger voters. Although it was the SNP that initially put it there, it is not seen as being the SNP's flag, but the flag of the people. The Tory/Labour/Liberal Democrat administration of Angus has used its one vote majority to push through taking down the Saltire, and they have been totally stunned by the reaction from people who are NOT in the SNP. They are starting to talk about a "two flags" solution. But this is merely a way of defusing their own enormous blunder. Their coalition is weakening on this particular issue and can be defeated by popular protest.

The flag which they are seeking to foist on us, the alleged "Angus" flag, is nothing of the sort. It is a modern invention, an artificial device for no other purpose but to be an excuse to remove the Saltire. This hodge-podge of a flag includes the coats of arms of four different feudal families who lorded it over the people of Angus. One of these four families is the Umfravilles. Sir Gilbert De Umfreville, Baron of Prudhoe, enemy of the Scottish people, foe of Wallace, supporter of Edward the First (the Hammer of the Scots) was made Earl of Angus by (English) Royal Decree. He would be laughing in his Anglo/Norman grave if he knew that by the decree of the Tory/Labour/Liberal Democrat administration his family crest is again to fly over the region, and the Saltire is again to be banished. As for the other three prominent families, they may be more Scottish, but the whole exercise stinks of getting us to touch our forelocks to our feudal masters. That flag can never be acceptable to fly over us.

agentmancuso · Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:56 am Post subject:

Holebender · Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 12:50 pm Post subject:

Yes, I'm sure elected councillors all over the land spend their time thinking up expensive wheezes to wind up voters while using up some of that pesky money they have to get rid of every year because the public just keeps on sending them more and more. Three cheers for Angus Council and their jolly jape.

It seems those without councils to amuse themselves with find alternatives, like posting one-liners to annoy the denizens of online fora.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1096

Agentmancuso wrote "Maybe they thought it would be fun to wind up the sort of cranks who think flags important?"

No, you are ascribing your own motives to a group of folk with very different motivations.

A "crank" is a "person of eccentric or obsessive views". Your own views, Agentmancso, would be regarded as decidedly cranky by most people. In any case, far from it being "eccentric" to think flags important, it is an easily verified fact that a huge percentage of the population of the world attaches considerable significance to which flag they live under. Many people, for instance, attach considerable significance to the British flag, the Union Jack. In the USA, it is against the law to disrespect the American flag. Similar "obsessions" can be found in countries throughout the world. By definition, a characteristic shared by billions of people can not be "eccentric".

The group of folk to whom you attribute this motive almost certainly didn't include any who were motivated solely by a desire to "wind up", but it almost certainly DID include folk with a variety of different motivations. For instance, some of the more conservative councillors (I use "conservative" with a small "c" here, to include both those who are members of the Tory party and some of those who claim to be "independent") probably do, as well as wanting to pull the Saltire down, feel some sort of respect for the symbols of feudal families. The Labour Party members of the coalition are possibly less likely to feel any attachment to the symbols of these "great" families as such. They probably just went along with the daft idea because it was made a condition of having the coalition at all, and they have almost certainly been totally stunned by the reaction to their acquiescence in this.

agentmancuso · Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:15 pm Post subject:

agentmancuso · Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:31 pm Post subject:

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1096

A "crank" is, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, a "person of eccentric or obsessive views". Agentmancso, who intruduced this term into this discussion, would no doubt be regarded as a "crank" by most people. Far from it being "eccentric" to attach some significance to which flag we live under, it is an easily verifiable fact that a huge percentage of the population of the world attaches considerable significance to which flag they live under. If you doubt this, just try telling the population of India that it would make no difference to them if the Indian flag was to be pulled down and the Union Jack raised once more over the British Raj. Or try telling the inhabitants of any Muslim country that it wouldn't matter if Islamic symbols were to be pulled down and a Christian cross raised in their place. It may be TRUE that in practice it makes little difference to the average inhabitant of India whether India is under the Indian flag or the Union Jack, it might even be TRUE that it would make little practical difference to the average inhabitant of an Islamic country if they lived under Christian rule, but that is beside the point. The point is not whether these things are true or not, but that the majority of the inhabitants of India, and the majority of the inhabitants of any Islamic country, would perceive things rather differently. Regardless of whether their belief is true or not, it is a fact that it is those who hold the opposing view who are the eccentric ones, and therefore, by extension, the "cranks".

Agentmancuso writes "That's one definition" - no, that is, according to the Oxford English dictionary, THE definition. You may want to be like Humpty Dumpty in Alice Through The Looking Glass and say that words mean whatever you choose them to mean, but in the real world that makes communication impossible. We are using the English language. The Oxford English Dictionary is a more reliable source of the meaning of words than yourself, Agentmancuso.

Agentmancuso continues "a huge percentage of the world's population are simpletons" - I think that is a rather harsh view of the human species, but, in any case, a widely held view, arguably a majority view, can not be a "crank" view, since, by definition, a majority view can not be "eccentric". For example, at one time a majority of the population of the world believed the world to be flat. They were mistaken in this belief, but, nevertheless, at the time when this belief was so widely held, it seemed to fit their experience, and it was those who denied that the world was flat who were seen as "cranks".

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1096

Agentmancuso asked "Why do you think they have acted in this way, if not to annoy the outgoing SNP group?" - as already explained, that curious alliance of councillors of different political parties probably had various different motives for their action. However, I do not for one minute believe that any politician who hopes one day to be re-elected, or even perhaps to progress to a higher status in a political career, actually intends to "wind up" the electorate to whom they are answerable. Yet that is, in fact, what they have done. While they may have expected opposition from the SNP, their own statements, as reported in the local press, prove just how deeply they are shocked by the far wider, and unexpected, hostile reaction to their blunder.

agentmancuso · Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 1:09 pm Post subject:

I appreciate your taking the trouble to repeat yourself ad nauseam, but I remain of the opinion that 'a crank' can quite usefully be defined as someone with an unhealthy or obsessive interest in things of little intrinsic merit.

I am unsure how exactly you hope to disprove my suggestion that worrying about flags is unhealthy by voluntarily associating this concern with suicide bombers, religious fundamentalists and tribal warriors.

All over the world, the people who obsess about flags (and similar tribal imagery) are the same people who dislike foreigners and resort to violence as a way to pursue political aims. As a rule, they ain't big readers either.
_________________
Liberty does not mean all good things, or the absence of all evils
Hayek

agentmancuso · Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 1:11 pm Post subject:

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1096

As pointed out before, Agentmancuso would undoubtedly be regarded as a "crank", using the Oxford English Dictionary definition and not his own Humpty-Dumpty-In-Alice-Through-The-Looking-Glass definition, by large numbers of people. Personally, I don't care whether some folk regard me as a "crank" or not. At one time most people believed the Earth was flat, and those who said it was round were regarded as cranks. My concern is with the truth.

Agentmancuso wrote "I am unsure how exactly you hope to disprove my suggestion that worrying about flags is unhealthy" - if that is what you were trying to say previously, this was not clear, since you expressed yourself badly. What I said in response to your poorly expressed view was that billions of people throughout the world exhibit a concern for which flag they have to live under, and, by definition, a concern shared by billions of people can not be regarded as "eccentric". It may be mistaken, but it cannot be eccentric. As regards what you are saying NOW , that is different from what you said before. Perhaps it isn't different from what you _wanted_ to say before, but it is different from what you actually said. Having disproved what you were saying before, I'm not going to bother with what you are saying now.

In response to me pointing out (again) that the odd alliance of councillors of very differenty political views probably included folk with different motives, Agentmancuso says "It's an unsupported assertion".

It is supported by things they have themselves said, some of which have been quoted in the local press. Local people here know it is not an unsupported assertion. I couldn't care less whether you do or not, your views on this matter are of no practical consequence.

agentmancuso · Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:31 pm Post subject:

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1096

Having so clearly lost the argument, Agentmancuso resorts to going down the path of personal abuse so well-trod by so many losers-of-arguments : "It might come as news to you, and the rest of the facepainters, but the truth is that the world is not flat".

(1) I have never painted my face in my entire life, and never would

(2) As previously stated, my point regarding Flat Earthists was precisely that at one time most people believed the Earth was flat, _and they were wrong_ . Yes, the majority can be wrong, and often is. But what the majority can NOT be, by definition, is eccentric/crank.

agentmancuso · Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:44 pm Post subject:

Still no inkling as to other possible explanations? Is it a secret? Do I have to go to Arbroath myself and buy a fish supper just to get a look at what was said in last weeks paper?

I'm not surprised you sympathise with Flat Earthers. They no doubt had a thing for tribal totems too.
_________________
Liberty does not mean all good things, or the absence of all evils
Hayek

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1096

Having so clearly lost the argument, Agentmancuso has chosen the resort of bad-argument-losers everywhere and gone down the path of personal abuse. He wrote "It might come as news to you, and the rest of the facepainters, but the truth is that the world is not flat". I pointed out that, at the age of sixty six, I have never painted my face in my life, never intend to do so, and also I am well aware that the Earth is not flat.

Agentmancuso now writes "I'm not surprised you sympathise with Flat Earthers".

As already explained, I don't.

The first time, giving Agentmancuso the benefit of the doubt, I assumed he had simply made a mistake. But having had his mistake pointed out, his persisting in stating what he knows to be an untruth becomes a lie. Agentmancuso is a liar. UNLIKE what he said about me, that is NOT an inaccurate statement, and it is NOT mere personal abuse. It is simple, easily verifiable, fact.

The Save Our Saltire campaign is a campaign in the county of Angus. It has widespread support in the county of Angus. Some of the clumsy councillors who first decided to take down the Saltire in the county of Angus are now back-tracking like mad. Since the campaign is gaining widespread support in the county of Angus, there is nothing we need to prove to Agentmancuso, whose opinions on this topic are totally irrelevant. Nevertheless, I personally was prepared to be polite to Agentmancuso. But now that he has dragged the discussion down to the level of personal abuse, and also now that he has revealed himself to be a persistent liar, there is no point in further discussion with him.

Aventinian · Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 8:58 am Post subject:

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1096

Aventinian wrote "The old story of glass houses and stones comes to mind" - that story is completely irrelevant. It would only be relevant if one person was calling another a "crank" while denying the application of this term to themselves. The actual position is that I have pointed out that the term "crank" is relative. It depends very much on what is seen as being the majority view, and what is seen as being the majority view varies with both time and place. According to a view widespread throughout the world at one time, anybody who said the world was round was a "crank". Being a "crank" is not necessarily being wrong, it is merely being out of tune with the majority. I would say that both Agentmancuso and myself hold views which some folk would regard as "crank". But so far as the county of Angus is concerned, the view that the Saltires which have flown here for longer than the lifetimes of many younger voters should not be removed is far too widespread a view to be decribed as "crank".

"Agent has not, to the best of my knowledge, been described as 'dotty' and 'eccentric' (an 'eccentric Braveheart' indeed!) by a national newspaper" - these words are matters of opinion, and since my solicitor has written to that so-called "newspaper" on my behalf, and we are currently awaiting their reply, I will only say that article was extremely inaccurate on matters of fact (not opinion). I have never described myself as a "Braveheart", that was _their_ word. They even asked me what my favourite film was, clearly angling for that answer. I told them that I didn't have a "favourite" film, but my general preference was for romantic comedies. As for Agentmancuso, who knows what he has been described as? Since, like yourself, he is one of those shy persons who hides behind a false name, for all we know, he could have, under his real name, been described as far, far worse things than these.

But all of this is largely irrelevant, because your analogy is irrelevant.

"Either way, I agree with him to some extent. I'd rather a proper government was not symbolically driven in this fashion and, as much as it pains me to say it, I would ultimately wish to see public buildings with no flags, heraldry or insignia. Despite the aesthetics, it is inappropriate." - Now that I could agree with. If the proposal had been that no flag, heraldry or insignia should fly over public buildings, I personally would have found that proposal acceptable. But that is NOT what was proposed. What was proposed was that the Saltire should be removed and replaced by a modern concoction which is a dog's breakfast of the coats of arms of four different families. One of these four families is that of Sir Gilbert De Umfreville, an anglo-norman knight, the Baron of Prudhoe, who was appointed by King Edward the First of England (the one known as "the hammer of the Scots", the one who had William Wallace hung, drawn, and quartered) as earl of Angus. A case could be made out that an "Angus" flag should fly over Angus county buildings. But there is no reasonable case for flying the insignia of Gilbert De Umfreville, Baron of Prudhoe. If these councilors genuinely wanted a flag to represent Angus, they should have come up with something more appropriate than this.

"Where I imagine we diverge is that I believe in an acceptable interim compromise" - what compromise? It might conceivably be an "acceptable interim compromise" to come up with some way of recognising BOTH a particular "Angus" identity AND the particular connections of Angus with the Scottish flag. But no such compromise has in fact been proposed. On their official documents, Angus County Council has an official insignia. A flag composed of that official insignia might be a bit uninspired, but at least it wouldn't be offensive. In my view, the proposed so-called "Angus" flag is nothing of the sort. There is no way any "compromise" could allow the insignia of the Baron of Prudhoe to fly over us.

"In absence of sterility, inclusivity is better than exclusivity" - but the one-vote-majority group on Angus County Council have clearly failed to achieve inclusivity. They have, in fact, caused division. Even within their own ranks. Although council leader Bob Myles of Brechin has defended the decision to remove the Saltire, the two "independent" councillors from Montrose have been notable by their total silence since this thing blew up in their faces, even ignoring specific requests to explain their position from the "Montrose Review". As for the two Labour Party councillors who voted for that decision, again, complete silence. "Inclusivity"? They have even failed to include members of their own "alliance".

"Either way, I think the SNP have rather shown themselves for what they are once more - nationalists" - well of course the SNP are nationalists! However, a lot of the folk who have objected to the decision to remove the Saltire are not. Including myself.