Siol nan Gaidheal forum

Whilst this forum is moderated, opinions expressed are those of the person posting, and are not necessarily those of the organisation.
It is currently Wed Aug 12, 2020 4:33 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jul 09, 2011 12:09 am 
Offline
NEC Member
NEC Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 6:40 pm
Posts: 1587
Location: Glasgow
Can we all please e mail enquiries@educationscotlan​d.gov.uk asking them to change the fact they are referring to Stirling Bridge as a rebellion and Wallace a rebel together with the Scots who fought for them, This is the type of site that kids will be reading


http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/scotlandsh ... /index.asp

Thanking you all in advance

_________________
Prosperity for Scotland and no to the Union


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jul 09, 2011 12:19 am 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 9:24 am
Posts: 249
[quote="Govanhill Jacobite"] This is the type of site that kids will be reading


You missed out the 'H'

:saltire:

_________________
We have not inherited this beautiful country of ours from our forefathers – we have only borrowed it from our children.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jul 09, 2011 1:02 am 
Offline
NEC Member
NEC Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 6:40 pm
Posts: 1587
Location: Glasgow
Castle Hunter wrote:
Govanhill Jacobite wrote:
This is the type of site that kids will be reading


You missed out the 'H'

:saltire:


:lol: :lol: :lol:

_________________
Prosperity for Scotland and no to the Union


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:03 am 
Offline
NEC Member
NEC Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 7:03 pm
Posts: 3436
Location: Angus
In 1296 Scotland was well under the rule of Edward Longshanks,our kingt was imprisoned in England to technically saying Wallace was involved in rebellion is correct.

_________________
He either fears his fate too much,
Or his deserts are small,
That puts it not unto the touch
To win or lose it all.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jul 09, 2011 9:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:35 pm
Posts: 113
montrose wrote:
In 1296 Scotland was well under the rule of Edward Longshanks,our kingt was imprisoned in England to technically saying Wallace was involved in rebellion is correct.


Longshanks was in control of the towns , but not the highlands , islands and large areas of the south west.

As rebellion means an act of violence against an established ruler or government , of which longshanks and his crew were not , not being elected by the scots people and being nothing more than foreign invaders and occupiers of part of the country , i would say wallace was involved in a war with a foreign invader of our country.

_________________
abair ach beagan agus abair gu math e


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jul 09, 2011 9:26 pm 
Offline
NEC Member
NEC Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 7:03 pm
Posts: 3436
Location: Angus
I canna think of any King Scots or otherwise that was elected by the people.

_________________
He either fears his fate too much,
Or his deserts are small,
That puts it not unto the touch
To win or lose it all.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:35 pm
Posts: 113
montrose wrote:
I canna think of any King Scots or otherwise that was elected by the people.


Then see the tanist system that was used to elect scottish and irish kings, or clan chiefs for centuries.

Thats not what i meant though.

Longshanks was not the legitimate ruler of scotland in any way shape or form.

Any more than the french resistance could be called as being in rebellion to hitlers rule.

The mentality of "rebellion" was often used by england to legitimise their invasion and occupation of many lands and the subsequent fighting back, by the occupied people , as in ireland, and many more lands against a foreign invader.

Its the same as calling wallace a traitor to longshanks when he never gave allegiance to him in the first place nor did he sign the ragmans roll.

_________________
abair ach beagan agus abair gu math e


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 9:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 12:16 am
Posts: 287
Location: Galloway
What do you reckon the correct turn of phrase should be?

Resistance fighter?

_________________
><

Chan eil mise nam Bhreatannach


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 12:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:35 pm
Posts: 113
Talorgan wrote:
What do you reckon the correct turn of phrase should be?

Resistance fighter?


I suppose its being a wee bit pedantic , i just happen to agree with govanhill.

Words like rebel , in my opinion , just try and inculcate the mentality of the enslaved.

Use whatever word you like , but if teaching our kids in our schools , we should not be calling him a rebel.

Freedom fighter to an unjust invasion and occupation of our land by a foreigner.

_________________
abair ach beagan agus abair gu math e


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 12:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:35 pm
Posts: 113
Castle Hunter wrote:
Govanhill Jacobite wrote:
This is the type of site that kids will be reading


You missed out the 'H'

:saltire:


:clap: :funny:

_________________
abair ach beagan agus abair gu math e


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 12:49 pm 
Offline
NEC Member
NEC Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 6:40 pm
Posts: 1587
Location: Glasgow
albannach wrote:
montrose wrote:
In 1296 Scotland was well under the rule of Edward Longshanks,our kingt was imprisoned in England to technically saying Wallace was involved in rebellion is correct.


Longshanks was in control of the towns , but not the highlands , islands and large areas of the south west.

As rebellion means an act of violence against an established ruler or government , of which longshanks and his crew were not , not being elected by the scots people and being nothing more than foreign invaders and occupiers of part of the country , i would say wallace was involved in a war with a foreign invader of our country.


Could not have put it better myself and used on another site if ok :saltire:

_________________
Prosperity for Scotland and no to the Union


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 1:35 pm 
Offline
NEC Member
NEC Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 7:03 pm
Posts: 3436
Location: Angus
Longshsnks was in total control of Scotland like it or not.He had castles built in most sizeable towns across Scotland and garrisons in smaller settlements.He did not have a presence in the highlands nor the islelands because he did nae need to.If we held those areas then why did our king not seek refuge there?

_________________
He either fears his fate too much,
Or his deserts are small,
That puts it not unto the touch
To win or lose it all.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 3:13 pm 
Offline
NEC Member
NEC Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 6:40 pm
Posts: 1587
Location: Glasgow
montrose wrote:
Longshsnks was in total control of Scotland like it or not.He had castles built in most sizeable towns across Scotland and garrisons in smaller settlements.He did not have a presence in the highlands nor the islelands because he did nae need to.If we held those areas then why did our king not seek refuge there?


John Bailliol as we know was not the greatest King although Longshanks did not help much there and going by your Route Montrose take it we are calling Robert the Bruce a rebel aswell then as the situation was exactly the same and going on from the second world war piece were the British actually helping the French Rebels then as germany ran France going by your theory, History as we know is written by the victors, Longshanks invaded Scotland and we without Wallace, De Moray and Bruce would not be Scotland today, That to me is not a rebel

_________________
Prosperity for Scotland and no to the Union


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 4:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:35 pm
Posts: 113
montrose wrote:
Longshsnks was in total control of Scotland like it or not.He had castles built in most sizeable towns across Scotland and garrisons in smaller settlements.He did not have a presence in the highlands nor the islelands because he did nae need to.If we held those areas then why did our king not seek refuge there?


Montrose , i hear whit ye are saying but thats not true. He wasnt in control of most of scotland , just the areas that were accessible , ie the lowland areas. The mountains were out of his league , just look at a mountainous country like afghanistan today.

Yes he was in control of the important areas , but you must remember that the majority of the population did not , unlike today , live in the towns and cities. A third of scotlands population were living in the highlands alone as late as the 18th century.

Of course he would have liked to control the highlands and islands , many of the scots living there were well documented as piling over to ireland and helping their gaelic brethern against the english and the islemen and their ships made fierce enemies.

He rebuilt some castles in scotland but most of them were already there having been built over the centuries since people like king david invited the normans in.

Our so called "king" (elected and put in place by longshanks himself)johnnie boy balliol or toom tabard as he was sarcastically nicknamed was a tit.
The man was nothing more than a puppet used by longshanks to further his own aims in scotland , and was ridiculed at every turn by longshanks.
Too scared of longshanks to hide in the mountains and fight on like bruce and wallace did , before he was eventually sent to france by edward and died at his family home at helicourt.
I dont think any one respected him least of all our people. Remember most of the nobles were essentially normans , or of celto norman decent speaking in french and were out of touch with the ordinary celtic gaidhlig speaking population .

Many of the old celtic aristocracy had been displaced in king davids time and their lands given to these normans , which simmered away and fuelled much resentment and division all those years later. We were hardly a happy united country after king alexanders death and longshanks used it to full advantage.

I think longshanks claim to rule over scotland came from alexander had to do homage to edward for lands he had as a baron in england , but NOT as king of scotland as longshanks made out.

We had scots , english and irish and welsh fighting on both sides , the whole place was fucked up till bruce got it under control after the death of edward.

_________________
abair ach beagan agus abair gu math e


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 4:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:35 pm
Posts: 113
Govanhill Jacobite wrote:
albannach wrote:
montrose wrote:
In 1296 Scotland was well under the rule of Edward Longshanks,our kingt was imprisoned in England to technically saying Wallace was involved in rebellion is correct.


Longshanks was in control of the towns , but not the highlands , islands and large areas of the south west.

As rebellion means an act of violence against an established ruler or government , of which longshanks and his crew were not , not being elected by the scots people and being nothing more than foreign invaders and occupiers of part of the country , i would say wallace was involved in a war with a foreign invader of our country.


Could not have put it better myself and used on another site if ok :saltire:


nae bother pal.

_________________
abair ach beagan agus abair gu math e


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 5:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 12:16 am
Posts: 287
Location: Galloway
albannach wrote:
I suppose its being a wee bit pedantic , i just happen to agree with govanhill.

Words like rebel , in my opinion , just try and inculcate the mentality of the enslaved.

Use whatever word you like , but if teaching our kids in our schools , we should not be calling him a rebel.

Freedom fighter to an unjust invasion and occupation of our land by a foreigner.


I agree with both of you. (Maybe we are all pedants.) Wallace should not be called a "rebel" as that word suggests a certain illegitimacy in his actions. The problem is that "rebel" trips off the tongue more easily than "a citizen or lieutenant of the King who quite legitimately took up arms against a foreign invader."

What terms do the Brits use to describe Arthur or Alfred. Let's play them at their own game!

_________________
><

Chan eil mise nam Bhreatannach


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 9:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 5:44 pm
Posts: 12
william wallace patriot and revolutionary :saltire:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 6:01 am 
Offline
Spammer
Spammer

Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:25 pm
Posts: 8
Talorgan wrote:
albannach wrote:
I suppose its being a wee bit pedantic , i just happen to agree with govanhill.

Words like rebel , in my opinion , just try and inculcate the mentality of the enslaved.

Use whatever word you like , but if teaching our kids in our schools , we should not be calling him a rebel.

Freedom fighter to an unjust invasion and occupation of our land by a foreigner.


I agree with both of you. (Maybe we are all pedants.) Wallace should not be called a "rebel" as that word suggests a certain illegitimacy in his actions. The problem is that "rebel" trips off the tongue more easily than "a citizen or lieutenant of the King who quite legitimately took up arms against a foreign invader."

What terms do the Brits use to describe Arthur or Alfred. Let's play them at their own game!


Well Arthur is the stuff of myth and legend and may not have actually existed. There is, however, some slight evidence that the West Saxon Witan (royal council) had deposed King Alfred. If correct, he could be regarded as a rebel.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 7:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 12:16 am
Posts: 287
Location: Galloway
famous wolf wrote:
There is, however, some slight evidence that the West Saxon Witan (royal council) had deposed King Alfred. If correct, he could be regarded as a rebel.


We know that you love your Alfred.

_________________
><

Chan eil mise nam Bhreatannach


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 9:22 pm 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 9:24 am
Posts: 249
Talorgan wrote:
albannach wrote:
I suppose its being a wee bit pedantic , i just happen to agree with govanhill.

Words like rebel , in my opinion , just try and inculcate the mentality of the enslaved.

Use whatever word you like , but if teaching our kids in our schools , we should not be calling him a rebel.

Freedom fighter to an unjust invasion and occupation of our land by a foreigner.


I agree with both of you. (Maybe we are all pedants.) Wallace should not be called a "rebel" as that word suggests a certain illegitimacy in his actions. The problem is that "rebel" trips off the tongue more easily than "a citizen or lieutenant of the King who quite legitimately took up arms against a foreign invader."

What terms do the Brits use to describe Arthur or Alfred. Let's play them at their own game!



In 2005, when Davie Ross had left on his trek to London, I attacked the EBC & the press for recent comments naming Wallace a rebel. During the Robroyston speech I said this
"I have been writing to TV companies & the press recently about their portrayal of Wallace. He is invariably described as a rebel or a traitor or both. We know he wasn’t a traitor because he pledged allegiance only to King John Balliol, & never signed the ‘Ragman’s Roll’ for Longshanks. He wasn’t a rebel because he was fighting against a foreign invader, in order to free his country. This makes him a freedom fighter, not a rebel.
So in future I would like to see all media articles refer to Sir William Wallace, Guardian of Scotland & freedom fighter".

Some years later, things are beginning to change. Recently, GJ had a reply from one of the offenders, changing their tune.

I had a reply a week ago from an educational website, saying they would change the wording on their site, because I told them I had an issue with their terminology.

They have been pushing for decades - we are now pushing back. If they don't like it, ....fill in the blanks. We WILL take what is ours.

:saltire:

_________________
We have not inherited this beautiful country of ours from our forefathers – we have only borrowed it from our children.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Copyright Siol nan Gaidheal © 2003-15

Newsnet Scotland