whats difference between Modern Scot

[MelodeonMan]

Whats the difference between the modern Scot and the Scot of olden days,Is todays Scots as true to their country as Scots were hundreds of years ago,What happened to the Brotherhood of the Scots has modern society done what Cumberland wasnt able to do no,And why are the American and Canadian people more Patriotic towards Scotland than the Scots who are here all the time,Has the Scot at home forgot all about their country and their pride,the only place we see anything remotely near it is in football and its the Hooligan that reminds us were Scots,What kind of Scot are you the modern Scot or the olden type Scot who has great pride and honor for your fellow man and woman and child,or have you fell into the trap of '''Im alright mate to hell with the rest'

[Monco]

Originally posted by MelodeonMan
Whats the difference between the modern Scot and the Scot of olden days,Is todays Scots as true to their country as Scots were hundreds of years ago,What happened to the Brotherhood of the Scots has modern society done what Cumberland wasnt able to do no,And why are the American and Canadian people more Patriotic towards Scotland than the Scots who are here all the time,Has the Scot at home forgot all about their country and their pride,the only place we see anything remotely near it is in football and its the Hooligan that reminds us were Scots,What kind of Scot are you the modern Scot or the olden type Scot who has great pride and honor for your fellow man and woman and child,or have you fell into the trap of '''Im alright mate to hell with the rest'

This is just gibberish trying to pass muster as a serious piece of social comment. What exactly are you on about? I believe pride is one of the big seven, but the reason Americans are more 'patriotic' towards Scotland is due to geography and history. They are not an indigenous people, and when sitting on the opposite side of the planet it is easy to get misty eyed and sentimental about 'the auld country' which exists as a romantic impression rather than as the humdrum reality of its actual inhabitants.

There is nothing admirable about that, nor is there anything particularly impressive about the primitive tribalistic passions which emerge during football (itself a vaguely warlike substitute).

As societies become richer, as western societies have done, then people do become more individualistic in their lives, but this is a good thing. I seriously doubt any sensible man who had an adequate knowledge of history, and who knew the misery people once lived in (until very recently) could seriously find anything admirable about those times or regard it as something to aspire to today.

And just to conclude, there was in the 20th century a country which went in for the glorious history of blood and soil nationalism, it was called Nazi Germany. Let us recognise the good fortune we presently enjoy.

[Steaphan]

You say it's gibberish but still you manage to write a short essay as a reply to it! It's impossible to respond to such a piece tho somehow you managed it Monco.

[Hirta]

Originally posted by Steaphan
You say it's gibberish but still you manage to write a short essay as a reply to it! It's impossible to respond to such a piece tho somehow you managed it Monco.

I'd have thought that this would be obvious. To say something is 'gibberish' is expressing a subjective viewpoint and therefore Monco had to back this up with reasoned discussion!

[Ganit]

I think Braveheart has a lot to answer for. This idea that the Scots of old where more loyal to the country is just plain wrong. Many Scots throughout history would happily work for whoever pays best/offers the best title.
A few exapmles might be the Grahams, the Scotts, the Kerrs, The Campbells, need i go on?

Its like the kilt, another invented tradition. Who would believe that a quaker ironmaster from Lancashire could be behind the supposed national costume.

I laugh every time i think of it.

[aNonnyMoose]

Here we go, this tired old keech again. If the kilt was only invented in the 1800's, how come a law was passed proscribing the wearing of same following the 1745 Rising? Allow me to quote:

Abolition And Proscription of the Highland Dress
19 GEORGE 11, CHAP. 39, SEC. 17, 1746

'That from and after the first day of August, One thousand, seven hundred and forty-seven, no man or boy within that part of Great Britain called Scotland, other than such as shall be employed as Officers and Soldiers in His Majesty's Forces, shall, on any pretext whatever, wear or put on the clothes commonly called Highland clothes (that is to say) the Plaid, Philabeg, or little Kilt, Trouse, Shoulder-belts, or any part whatever of what peculiarly belongs to the Highland Garb; and that no tartan or partly-coloured plaid or stuff shall be used for Great Coats or upper coats, and if any such person shall presume after the said first day of August, to wear or put on the aforesaid garments or any part of them, every such person so offending......shall be liable to be transported to any of His Majesty's plantations beyond the seas, there to remain for the space of seven years'.

Note that it mentions the Plaid (Filidh Mhor, or great kilt) and the Filidh Beag, or what is now generally (and incorrectly) just termed the kilt.

Whaur's yir ironmonger noo?

[HollyElise]

Originally posted by Ganit
I think Braveheart has a lot to answer for. This idea that the Scots of old where more loyal to the country is just plain wrong. Many Scots throughout history would happily work for whoever pays best/offers the best title.
A few exapmles might be the Grahams, the Scotts, the Kerrs, The Campbells, need i go on?

Its like the kilt, another invented tradition. Who would believe that a quaker ironmaster from Lancashire could be behind the supposed national costume.

I laugh every time i think of it.

Really, Ganit? I would love to hear the full story of this, and just what revisions he was responsible for.