Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

carol · Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 7:09 pm Post subject:

our national flag identified worldwide, doesn't represent independence, any government, political party etc

Carol

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1267

Aventinian wrote "I notice you didn't actually address the point I made which demonstrates that Angus Council totally disagrees with your interpretation of history there".

Okay. I'll address it.

The majority of the councillors have only a very vague notion of who these coats-of-arms on the so-called "Angus flag" are supposed to represent. They didn't really anticipate that their lack of knowledge on such matters would turn out to be a handicap.

It is not true that "Angus Council" totally disagree with my interpretation of history there. What is true is that a minority of the councillors disagree with my interpretation there. This minority of councillors managed, on one occasion, to induce a few other councillors into voting with them on this issue, not because they "disagreed with my interpretation of history there", but simply because this was a condition of having an alliance which could take over the running of the council at all.

That minority of councillors who disagree with my interpretation of history there got lucky on one occasion. They managed to squeek their plan through with a majority of one. It remains to be seen whether they will be able to repeat that stroke of luck. I have reason to believe that several of the councillors who voted their way last time are considering their options.

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1267

Carol, I don't see why it matters so much to you whether I fly a flag after independence or not. The vast majority of people in this country do not fly flags from their houses, garages or double-storey-rabbit-hutches. The vast majority of the people who signed the petition to keep the Saltire flying from public buildings in Angus do not fly flags from their own houses. Whether I do or not is a matter entirely up to me. So why should it matter so much to you whether I do, or not?

carol · Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 7:30 pm Post subject:

it doesn't matter Dave just curious to why you won't fly it after independence

so why may it be perceived as being a government flag following independence?

Carol

Aventinian · Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:11 pm Post subject:

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1267

Carol asked "why may it be perceived as being a government flag following independence?"

Well, it might not seem like that to most people. But to some. Including me. At present, Scotland, along with Catalonia etc, is officially regarded by various European and international bodies as a "stateless nation". Mind you, with the SNP in power, it gets less and less "stateless" every day! (Taking international initiatives over nuclear weapons, seeking to "repatriate" control of elections, etc etc etc.) But still, technically, "a stateless nation". But as soon as we are officially independent, there can no longer be any pretence of being "stateless". The nascent Scottish state which is already flexing its muscles will be well and truly a reality. At present I fly the Saltire to emphasise independence from the British state. But then, FOR ME , it will be necessary to take the saltire down, in order to emphasise that no government, no state, owns me. This is my own personal decision, and I am not suggesting that anybody should follow my example.

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1267

Aventinian wrote "for Christ's sake"

When I was a young laddie, if there was one thing that my mother liked even less than she liked foul language, it was blasphemy. It was drummed into me that those who resorted to such language did so because they were unable to express themselves properly. I still think that is true.

"don't be a sore loser" - I haven't lost anything. The SNP (a party which doesn't include me) members of Angus Council, plus the only genuine Independent on the Council, lost that decision by one vote. It only became a matter known to the general public (including myself) after that. As John Paul Jones said at the Battle of Flamborough Head, "Lose? I haven't even begun to fight yet".

"Pretending a minority agree with what a majority have voted for" - it was a one-vote majority, and I have reason to believe that one vote has disappeared.

agentmancuso · Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 9:19 pm Post subject:

Aventinian · Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 9:19 pm Post subject:

So in order words, you can't answer the historical question.

agentmancuso · Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 9:21 pm Post subject:

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1267

Aventinian wrote "you can't answer the historical question".

What historical question?

You wrote a lot of highly subjective political stuff, but I wasn't aware you had asked any historical question.

carol · Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 7:22 am Post subject:

agentmancuso · Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:21 pm Post subject:

Aventinian · Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:28 pm Post subject:

carol · Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:23 pm Post subject:

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1267

Simple lesson in English grammar: a question is something that ends with a question mark.

Aventinian wrote "you can't answer the historical question".

To which I responded "What historical question?"

(Note that, although I was unaware of any alleged historical "question" from Aventinian, my response to Aventinian was indeed phrased as a question.)

Aventinian now quotes at length from a statement which he made in an earlier post. I have studied what he re-posted, and I still don't see any question mark. Like I said before, "You wrote a lot of highly subjective political stuff, but I wasn't aware you had asked any historical question".

Aventinian now says "I pointed out that Angus Council's report on the matter differed wildly from your, erm, interpretation of history" - okay, so maybe it does.

"and asked that you answer why it is so" - statement of fact: no, you didn't ask me why. You maybe intended to, you maybe thought you had, but you didn't.

"considering that Angus Council is a rather more reliable source of fact than you" - statement of fact: that is a matter of opinion.

So far, all we have regarding what "Angus Council" is alleged to have said is your interpretation of this. If you want the discussion to go any further, then you are going to have to provide either a link to the actual document to which you are referring, or a proper academic reference for it.

Having said that, of course there is more than one possible interpretation of the various coats of arms on the so-called "Angus" flag, but one of them certainly is associated with Gilbert de Umfreville, Baron of Prudhoe, in Northumberland, who married Matilda, countess of Angus, and thus gained a plausible claim to the title of "Earl" for himself. The son of Gilbert and Matilda, also called Gilbert de Umfreville (1246-1308) , was raised by Simon De Montfort, Earl of Leicester, and, although he succeeded to the title of Earl of Angus, he spent most of his life in England. He founded a chantry at Prudhoe castle in Northumberland for two priests to celebrate mass daily. The connection of this lot with Angus is at best slight, and at worst positively harmful to the people of Angus, and I see no reason why we should celebrate them.

More generally, I see no particular reason why we should celebrate any of the thugs, con-men, and protection-racketeers who lorded it over the people of Angus. Flying the arms of Gilbert de Umfreville may be particularly offensive, but I see no reason why, in 2007, we should accept that any of their symbols should fly over the folk of Angus.

I mentioned earlier that, if there is a real demand for an Angus flag, then there could be some sort of competition to design one, and some sort of consultation process by which the people of Angus can express a view on the various entries for this competition. Aventinian didn't like that idea. Perhaps because, since he isn't a resident of Angus, he would have no say in the process. But it might produce something good. And if it didn't, well, at least it wouldn't produce something positively offensive.

agentmancuso · Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 2:50 pm Post subject:

carol · Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 3:11 pm Post subject:

cheers i wasn't sure if you were heading in the nit-picking direction, too much time is wasted on it and energies could be better used elsewhere Wink

regards

Carol

Aventinian · Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 3:15 pm Post subject:

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1267

Aventinian wrote "You're being pointlessly evasive" - no I'm not. It is entirely up to me, and nobody else, which parts of a message from you, or from anybody else, I choose to comment on, and which parts I choose to ignore. That is not "being evasive". It is me setting my priorities, not yours.

However, for the record, for your future reference, if you have a question you want to ask me, then phrase it clearly as a question, and, whether you consider this to be grammatically essential or not, just because you know that I do, put a question mark at the end of it. I will answer a direct question. I may choose to ignore what I consider you just waffling on.

"This Scottish saltire you're so proud of" - the main person celebrated on the Saint Andrews Cross is of course Saint Andrew. He was one of Jesus's twelve apostles. Far from being a big shot aristocratic landowner or politician, he was persecuted and crucified. On a diagonal cross.

"was of course the banner of a King" - true. But that was a very long time ago and nowadays it has become a flag of the common people. So far as I know none of the big landowners of Angus today claim descent from that king. Whereas some of the characters celebrated on that so-called "Angus" flag have living descendants who are insufferable enough without giving them any extra reason for thinking they are better than the rest of us.

"Have you removed the reference to Edward I" - the de Umfrevilles were confirmed as overlords of Angus by King Edward the First of England. The De Umfrevilles were on the side of the English king against both Wallace and Bruce. According to the link which you yourself sent, the top right quarter of the so-called "Angus" flag is the arms of the De Umfrevilles. That is offensive.

"Offensive to one person" - no. I wasn't even aware of this until it was pointed out to me by other people for whom it is offensive.

"You'd probably have had a better case being offended by the symbols that refer to Robert the Bruce in the flag" - I'm not quite sure why you say that, but it's true Bruce was an opportunist of whom many in Scotland were suspicious at the time, and the "Community of the Realm" did spell out in the Declaration of Arbroath that they reserved the right to depose him if he let them down. Let me make it quite clear, I object to all of the symbols of feudal overlordship on that so-called "Angus" flag.

If there is a real demand for an Angus flag, then there could be some sort of competition to design one, and some sort of consultation process by which the people of Angus can express a view on the "candidates". You never know, this might produce something good. And if it doesn't, well, at least it wouldn't produce something positively offensive.