British flag and Scottish Independence?

Post Reply New Topic

which part? The flag or Scotland's membership of the union?

They will most likely vote to stay in so its a pretty trivial concern.

As far as I'm aware, the general consensus is that in the unlikely event of the Scots voting for independence, the Union Flag will stay on as a result of tradition and symbolising the remaining three nations of the rump UK. As an Englishman I'd be perfectly happy with that, the Union Flag is known around the world much more than the English Flag and frankly, looks much better too.

Things are so crap over here, even the Scots have had enough.

I personally hope one day that Scotland get their independence and subsequently invade us. I'd rather see my taxes spent in Edinburgh, which is closer to where I live. London is much further away, and sometimes seems completely disconnected from the rest of England. If I didn't know better, I might think that London was some kind of French outpost, given the weird accents that many of our PM's have had.
(I'm a Northerner lol)

... then I awake from my little daydream and note that our previous two 'leaders' were born North of Hadrian's wall.

Where's bloody Germany when you need them?

Blair is English, that is the background he always identifies as. Childhood in Scotland was just a part of his past, it's not part of his present.

You want an independent North Britain, methinks, rather than Scotland. It belies the SNP claims of us having a different political culture to England. It's quite selfish how they are claiming that by comparing the overall patterns of 2 traditional nations instead of looking at how the political dividing line is not at the nations' border at all.

If Scotland seceded then yes- I suppose the remaining UK would have to remove "the Cross of St. Andrew" from the Union Jack. You would just have the square Cross of St. George without that diagonal cross imposed upon it. It would be a rather boring design.

That isn't what political correctness means, but leaving that aside...

I like this one:

And this one:


I also like the one thomas posted, but I'd prefer one that incorporates something that represents Wales. Maybe a Dragon in the middle.

I doubt VERY much that England would update their flag to acknowledge the departure of Scotland from their (so-called) United Kingdom.

The reason I doubt it is because back when Scotland was defeated by England in war and joined their (so-called) United Kingdom, England did not even bother to update their anti-Scottish national anthem, to acknowledge that the Scottish people were now his Majesty's subjects and no longer his enemies.

Hence, the current national anthem of the United Kingdom is still outrageously offensive to Scottish people.

Verse six of "God Save the Queen" celebrates the ethnic cleansing of Scottish people (who, at the time when this song was written, were at war with England):

"Lord grant that Marshal Wade
May by thy mighty aid
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
And like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush."

England won the war (having crushed a lot of "rebellious Scots") and, having merged Scotland into the English territory, the English monarchy then started forcing Scottish people to sing this song to the English monarch.

The fact that this anthem has never been done away with and replaced with another is an absolute DISGRACE. I know of no other country in the world whose national anthem contains lyrics describing its eager wish to massacre its own citizens.

I am English but have lived in Scotland since I was very young. Until I read the full lyrics of this horrible song the Queen wants her subjects to sing to her, I used to wonder why many Scottish athletes refused to sing the so-called national anthem at televised sporting events.

When that song is played at "British" sporting events, most Scottish mouths remain stubbornly closed. They refuse to sing it when the music starts. English people then get angry and say that Scottish people are too nationalist.

Well, think about it like this: how would you feel (as an English person) if you were required to sing a song that said "rebellious English to crush?" In other words, a song that was basically saying: "I hope all the English people get killed!"

That's what Scottish people are required to sing about themselves: a song that's saying "we hope all the Scottish people are massacred." No wonder they don't want to sing it! I no longer sing it either, now that I know how horrible that verse is, because I love the Scottish people and do not wish to express any desire that they be massacred.

Fair enough, the monarchy don't usually make people sing that particular verse any more - but Scottish people know that that verse is still part of the song, however much the English monarchs try to pretend that it isn't.

Of course, the reason this absurdly offensive song has not been replaced with a new one is because the royal family are so big on traditions. They like everything always staying the same way. Even if a tradition they are observing no longer makes any sense, they still keep doing it, just because "that's the way it's always been."

So their probable justification for not changing the national anthem is because they are used to it, and would miss it.

How touching. /end sarcasm.

Anyway, my point is that Britain would probably not update their flag if Scotland left the UK - because they like it the way it is.

If they do update the harmless flag having failed to update the offensive song for all these centuries, I will be even more disgusted. So you update a harmless flag instantly, but fail to update a hugely offensive song that's been around for centuries? Way to get your priorities wrong.

Last edited by thumbhole on 15 Mar 2014, 8:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Thats interesting about British National anthem.

The 'state song' of my home state here in the USA is "Maryland, My Maryland" written by James Ryder Randall to the tune of "Oh Tannebaum" ( if you're gonna ripoff a tune- ripoff the best- its a lovely tune). Out of state students at Maryland U would complain that "it doesnt make sense that the clock tower chimes 'Oh Christmas Tree' in the middle of July!" But I digress.

Most Marylanders are vaguely aware that the song says something about "maryland, my maryland. Your beauty is unchanging".

Few know all nine verses of the song- which include the lines "the despot's heel is on they shore! Maryland! His torch is at the Temple's door...dear mother burst the tyrant's chain."

Maryland native Randall wrote the song while living in Alabama around 1861 as a call to arms to his native state to resist the tyranny of...the northern half of his own country! The civil was breaking out and the southern states were seceding one by one- and joining the confederacy. And he was exhorting Marylanders to "answer Virginia's call" and join the rebel cause as well.

The final stanza goes "I hear the distant thunder-hum, bugle fife and drum. HUZZAH! She (Maryland) spurns the Northern scum!".

My state song not only preaches sedition, but it describes the 75 percent of our nation's people who happen to live north of the Mason-Dixon Line as "scum"!


LOL!

That chip on your shoulder is enormous, man! Talk about going out of your way to be offended!

The verse you refer to was a temporary, short-lived addition from the mid-18th century (i.e. 50+ years before the song became the British national anthem) that commemorated specific events at that period and was later dropped (probably before the 19th century). This verse is long forgotten to most people, is not part of the official national anthem (and was not even during the early 20th century) and serves as a historical curiosity only as one of the additions - there was also a Jacobite version too, I believe. Many different verses over the years were added, taken away and changed during the 1700s and 1800s. It's only relatively recently that we have a consistent three-verse standardised version.

If "rebellious Scots to crush" was sung today as an integral part of the anthem, you'd have a point.

To all intents and purposes in the modern era, this verse doesn't exist.

Oh, and...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7YnOpOhu3c[/youtube]

Last edited by Tequila on 16 Mar 2014, 8:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

Tequila, I do not have any "chip on my shoulder" and I am not offended, since as I explained, I am not Scottish. I'm English.

I said that I find the song offensive. I did not say that I am personally offended by it. Scottish people are, though - understandably!

However you attempt to justify it, I still think that it's absolutely disgusting to have that song as the British national anthem.

In my opinion, when Scotland and England were united after the wars, the monarchy should have commissioned a brand new song to be written, to bury the hatchet and start afresh. But they didn't.

Think of it like this: if Hitler had written a song with lyrics encouraging people to kill the Jews, would you want to sing that song today, if the offensive parts were removed? Personally, I wouldn't. The mere fact that the song was written to encourage people to murder Jews would make the whole song offensive to me, even if the offensive parts were censored.

The same applies to the British national anthem. It has (or, as you insist, once had) a verse about genocide. How ever much you try to protest that the song is now "acceptable" because the offending verse is not included any more, Scottish people have long memories. They remember that verse.

I think it's disgusting.

Naturalplastic: it seems I was mistaken to assume that the British anthem is the only one to sing historically nasty things about killing people. How sad that there are other songs like that still around today. It makes me feel very gloomy.

Why is it that people seem to think that old-fashioned songs are always best? They aren't. Sometimes it would just be best to scrap them, leave the past in the past, and write a brand new song!

So you're offended on behalf of other people! That's even more pathetic.

Funnily enough, it's only the more extreme grievance mongers that seem to bring this up. No-one else (including moderate Nationalists who want 'independence' - whilst staying in the EU, ha) seems to give a damn.

Erm, most Scots opposed the Jacobites at the time, and this verse refers to them - not to all Scots. Many of the Stuart-supporting Scots of the time would have supported the general sentiment of the song.

Also, the Irish national anthem speaks of "the Saxon foe" and is quite militaristic although this is not regularly sung. I'm English (with Irish unionist sympathies!) and I'm not remotely offended by this. In 200 years, do we get all offended by it and tell the Irish to change their anthem? They would tell us to get stuffed, and rightly so.



No, because that song would be written with the intention of encouraging the murder of Jews - that would be its main purpose.

Think of a much better analogy.

God Save the Queen was not written with the intention of being the royal anthem), and nor did it originally have that "rebellious Scots" verse in it. It was used as an addition to the original song at the height of the Jacobite war, used for a short period, and then discarded.

You'll find that a lot of the references in the song would have been relevant to the historical events of that period, but my favourite verse has to be the second "confound their politics" verse.

For instance, for another long-forgotten verse was penned anonymously and briefly sung in the 19th century, and that dates from one of our battles with France:



I can't see the French or Catholics getting all het up about this today as it's obscure and was ditched soon after. It's a part of our history, nothing more - everyone recognises this. The French no doubt have a lot of anti-English/British war songs from their history.

But, anyway, your analogy fails as a) the song wasn't written with the intention of glorifying the crushing of Jacobites and b) this verse is a long-forgotten part of the national anthem's history that has little relevance to it these days. It's a historical curiosity.



There has never been an official version of GSTQ. It has evolved over time and been changed by many different people. That's sort of the point. There were most probably anti-American verses sung to the tune around the time of the war with America in the late 18th century. Should they be offended too when that song sung at that time calls for defeating the Yankees?

Some of the more bitter Scottish nationalists live in a time warp, a bit like some Irish republicans do. Most Scots and Irish have left their bitterness behind. Most Indians don't hate Britain because of the Empire, much like most Irish manage not to live with a burning hatred of the UK.

Last edited by Tequila on 16 Mar 2014, 8:51 am, edited 3 times in total.

I don't think people care much about a song with different lyrics but the same tune as a current song hundreds of years before they were born. If it turned out that the Boer War was set to the tune of Hey Jude, I wouldn't stop listening to it!

thumnbhole: you have made numerous incorrect claims about the British national anthem. Perhaps you would not be so outraged if you actually looked into the history of it. Tequila has very helpfully provided you with all you need to know. Frankly, the only way someone could be offended by it is if they were actively looking to be offended.

I wouldn't be against Germany using the all of the verses of Deutschlandlied back to its full glory - shame about the irredentist stuff in the first verse. The second verse is wonderful though.

If more than 30% vote for 'independence' I'll be very surprised.

I would prepare for a surprise then, because from what I read the latest opinion polls put the yes campaign at 47%.