Is it racist to think that your country, is better than others?

First topic message reminder :

Is that a racist thing or is it a natural occurrence?
If you constantly go about saying "Well over here we do things far better....are far superior.....have far better this and that.."

Is that racism, boastfulness or pride in your country?

Seems to me that a few people on here claim to be so "left" yet when it boils down to it, they come across just as arrogantly as some RW Brits!

Is it right to keep on telling another person "Your country sucks"

If that was a white man saying that to a black African - would that be right?


Or is it only okay if the two countries involved are America and Great Britain?

Sorry this needs to be said as I'm getting rather peeved that certain people on the Internet can go on endlessly and rudely  about my country, yet I'm never rude about theirs.

Don't be scared or biased people, opinions please!

Wallace led the Scottish rebellion against Edward I and inflicted a famous defeat on the English army at Stirling Bridge. He is remembered as a patriot and national hero.

William Wallace was born in the 1270s in Elderslie in Renfrewshire into a gentry family. Very little is known about his early years and there are significant periods of his life for which there are no reliable sources.

In 1296, Edward I of England had taken advantage of a succession crisis in Scotland and imposed himself as ruler with an English administration. Within months, Scottish unrest was widespread.

In May 1297, Wallace attacked the town of Lanark, killing the English sheriff and unrest quickly became full-blown rebellion. Men flocked to join Wallace and he began to drive the English out of Fife and Perthshire. In September 1297, Wallace defeated a much larger English force at the Battle of Stirling Bridge. This and subsequent military successes severely weakened the English hold on Scotland. Wallace then launched raids into England. In late 1297 or early 1298 he was knighted and appointed 'guardian of the kingdom' in the name of John Balliol, the deposed king of Scotland.

The shock of the defeat at Stirling rallied the English around Edward, who marched north with an army. Wallace's strategy was to avoid confrontation and gradually withdraw. He destroyed the countryside as he went, forcing Edward to march deeper and deeper into Scotland. In July 1298, the Scottish and English armies met near Falkirk, and the Scots were defeated. Wallace escaped and little is known of his movements, but at some stage he resigned the guardianship and was succeeded by Robert Bruce and John Comyn.

Wallace then went abroad, notably to France, to seek support for the Scottish cause. He returned to Scotland in 1303. In his absence Robert Bruce had accepted a truce with Edward I and, in 1304, John Comyn came to terms with the English as well. Wallace was excluded from these terms and the English king offered a large sum of money to anyone who killed or captured him. Wallace was seized in or near Glasgow in August 1305, and transported to London. He was charged and tried with treason, which he denied, saying he had never sworn allegiance to the English king. His execution was held on 23 August, where he was hung, drawn and quartered. His head was placed on London Bridge, and his limbs displayed in Newcastle, Berwick, Stirling and Perth.


the real traitor was arguably Robert Bruce

using your logic
Gandhi was a traitor

the American Revolutionaries where traitors
in fact any body who sort self rule from England are traitors

korban dallas wrote:using your logic
Gandhi was a traitor

the American Revolutionaries where traitors
in fact any body who sort self rule from England are traitors

It shows you know little about history.
It matters little what you think about Wallace, to the English he was a traitor and most of the stories about Wallace are suspect to say the least based o the sources because either English and Scottish are going to be biased either way and it is finding fact from fiction of which much fiction has been centered around Wallace.All of which is irrelevant anyway as this point was merely used to take the piss. The American Revolutionaries were traitors to the British. You need to understand who is defined by which group that are. The Revolutionaries would not have seen themselves as traitors, but again many also sided with the British where they would have been seen as traitors. It works both ways how people would be classed as traitors dependent on the cause

What is relevant is many Scots certainly collaborated with the English for centuries making many of them traitors to the Scots. You clearly need to follow the thread correctly and am sorry but the Scottish history is not much to write home about, apart from a few instances of Scottish glory like the Battle of Bannockburn. There is plenty of accounts of bravery by Scots but in much of their history many have sided with the English and like as I stated took up offers by the English to take lands confiscated by the English in Ireland. This was instrumental to the problems faced in Northern Ireland creating an imbalance of Protestants in the area, so much so that it caused violence and strife. The English tried to basically ethnically cleanse the area of Irish Catholics. Northern Ireland was for many years discriminating against  Catholics, one being my own father. Who after my parents married in Canada, they left because my mother did not like the climate and came to Northern Ireland. Here at every turn he was turned down for a job because he was Catholic. He was left with only be able to join the British army. So I have a very strong case to quite rightly call many Scottish traitors to their own people. You may not like this but its history is riddled with this. There is no doubt the problems of Northern Ireland would not have been what they were without this intervention in history and most of the Protestants in Northern Ireland are descendents from the Scots who took up this English offer. So when I say many Scots were traitors to their own people, they most certainly were.

http://www.xkcd.com/

Another legend, one that is interesting, which is based and centered around a real historical character of a Romano British leader who clearly resisted the Saxons.

St. Patrick was also Roman-British He was kidnapped and enslaved by the Irish.

Ben_Reilly wrote:St. Patrick was also Roman-British He was kidnapped and enslaved by the Irish.

St Paul is the patron saint of Malta, because he also became ship wrecked there.
Does not really say much how people choose their patron saint on nationalities.

Nemesis wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:St. Patrick was also Roman-British He was kidnapped and enslaved by the Irish.

St Paul is the patron saint of Malta, because he also became ship wrecked there.
Does not really say much how people choose their patron saint on nationalities.

I've always wondered how a half-Palestinian man born in Syria became the patron saint of England. Particularly one that UK right-wingers want more celebration of

Nemesis wrote:The Revolutionaries would not have seen themselves as traitors, but again many also sided with the British where they would have been seen as traitors. It works both ways how people would be classed as traitors dependent on the cause.

You make a good point about the American Revolution.  There were both Rebels and Loyalists, respectively.  The Rebels were well aware that if they lost they might be executed.

Although my father's father came over from Scotland, my mother's family hails back to the Revolution, residents of Virginia.  They were Loyalists, and had to retreat to the Bahamas fearing for their lives.  After the Revolution they re-entered the US in western Ontario, still mindful that some in Virginia could be vindictive.

Edward I was a magnificent king and great for England.  But for the Scots he was a double-dealing rat.  When Margaret, the Maid of Norway died (1290) leaving the Ceannmor family with no more direct heirs, he offered to mediate between two female branches of the heirs of a brother, the Earl of Huntingdon: Margaret (whence came John Balliol) and Isabel (whence came the Bruces, Earls of Carrick).  Robert Bruce's daughter Marjory married Walter the Steward, whence came the Stewart family, to be changed to the French spelling Stuart by Mary Queen of Scots, formerly Queen of France (m. Francios II).

When the Scots agreed to let Edward I mediate, he (Edward) took it as a sigh of obeisance and fealty...which was well-contradicted at the Battle of Sterling Bridge.  So Edward believed that Wallace's behavior was treason, and the Scots did not.

It was an arrogant assumption, something that continued up until the Tudurs married into the Stewart family (Margaret and James IV). A bit of irony that the Scottish crown ended up taking over England.

Original Quill wrote:

Nemesis wrote:The Revolutionaries would not have seen themselves as traitors, but again many also sided with the British where they would have been seen as traitors. It works both ways how people would be classed as traitors dependent on the cause.

You make a good point about the American Revolution.  There were both Rebels and Loyalists, respectively.  The Rebels were well aware that if they lost they might be executed.

Although my father's father came over from Scotland, my mother's family hails back to the Revolution, residents of Virginia.  They were Loyalists, and had to retreat to the Bahamas fearing for their lives.  After the Revolution they re-entered the US in western Ontario, still mindful that some in Virginia could be vindictive.

Edward I was a magnificent king and great for England.  But for the Scots he was a double-dealing rat.  When Margaret, the Maid of Norway died (1290) leaving the Ceannmor family with no more direct heirs, he offered to mediate between two female branches of the heirs of a brother, the Earl of Huntingdon: Margaret (whence came John Balliol) and Isabel (whence came the Bruces, Earls of Carrick).  Robert Bruce's daughter Marjory married Walter the Steward, whence came the Stewart family, to be changed to the French spelling Stuart by Mary Queen of Scots, formerly Queen of France (m. Francios II).

When the Scots agreed to let Edward I mediate, he (Edward) took it as a sigh of obeisance and fealty...which was well-contradicted at the Battle of Sterling Bridge.  So Edward believed that Wallace's behavior was treason, and the Scots did not.

Edward was a bastard to the Scots, there is no denying this and his weak son allowed the Scottish to regain their independence. The fact is there is no doubt many Scots sided with Edward I and this is beyond doubt where many betrayed their own people to just gain power and wealth. Edward was not stupid in this area by offering lands for allegiance. Maybe I am being unfair to the point that it is easy to betray based on a better life given to the wealthy here and that their subjects have to follow, but again many were complicit here in helping the English. As I say not all Scots agreed with Wallace, in fact many were at odds with him and certainly many betrayed him also, if we are to believe some of the Scottish accounts on all of this and we certainly know of English records that show how Scottish Nobles backed Edward I. What Edward I did well was to play the Nobles off against each other, he played off their greed.

Original Quill wrote:

Nemesis wrote:The Revolutionaries would not have seen themselves as traitors, but again many also sided with the British where they would have been seen as traitors. It works both ways how people would be classed as traitors dependent on the cause.

You make a good point about the American Revolution.  There were both Rebels and Loyalists, respectively.  The Rebels were well aware that if they lost they might be executed.

Although my father's father came over from Scotland, my mother's family hails back to the Revolution, residents of Virginia.  They were Loyalists, and had to retreat to the Bahamas fearing for their lives.  After the Revolution they re-entered the US in western Ontario, still mindful that some in Virginia could be vindictive.

Edward I was a magnificent king and great for England.  But for the Scots he was a double-dealing rat.  When Margaret, the Maid of Norway died (1290) leaving the Ceannmor family with no more direct heirs, he offered to mediate between two female branches of the heirs of a brother, the Earl of Huntingdon: Margaret (whence came John Balliol) and Isabel (whence came the Bruces, Earls of Carrick).  Robert Bruce's daughter Marjory married Walter the Steward, whence came the Stewart family, to be changed to the French spelling Stuart by Mary Queen of Scots, formerly Queen of France (m. Francios II).

When the Scots agreed to let Edward I mediate, he (Edward) took it as a sigh of obeisance and fealty...which was well-contradicted at the Battle of Sterling Bridge.  So Edward believed that Wallace's behavior was treason, and the Scots did not.

Nice! My people were just fresh meat for canal construction in New Orleans, imported from Ireland at the height of the famine in the 1840s. Half of 'em probably died of malaria or something ...

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You make a good point about the American Revolution.  There were both Rebels and Loyalists, respectively.  The Rebels were well aware that if they lost they might be executed.

Although my father's father came over from Scotland, my mother's family hails back to the Revolution, residents of Virginia.  They were Loyalists, and had to retreat to the Bahamas fearing for their lives.  After the Revolution they re-entered the US in western Ontario, still mindful that some in Virginia could be vindictive.

Edward I was a magnificent king and great for England.  But for the Scots he was a double-dealing rat.  When Margaret, the Maid of Norway died (1290) leaving the Ceannmor family with no more direct heirs, he offered to mediate between two female branches of the heirs of a brother, the Earl of Huntingdon: Margaret (whence came John Balliol) and Isabel (whence came the Bruces, Earls of Carrick).  Robert Bruce's daughter Marjory married Walter the Steward, whence came the Stewart family, to be changed to the French spelling Stuart by Mary Queen of Scots, formerly Queen of France (m. Francios II).

When the Scots agreed to let Edward I mediate, he (Edward) took it as a sigh of obeisance and fealty...which was well-contradicted at the Battle of Sterling Bridge.  So Edward believed that Wallace's behavior was treason, and the Scots did not.

Nice! My people were just fresh meat for canal construction in New Orleans, imported from Ireland at the height of the famine in the 1840s. Half of 'em probably died of malaria or something ...

Whilst many of my relatives stayed on in Donegal and suffered great hardship.
It was not until the 20th century many went to the US.

Nemesis wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You make a good point about the American Revolution.  There were both Rebels and Loyalists, respectively.  The Rebels were well aware that if they lost they might be executed.

Although my father's father came over from Scotland, my mother's family hails back to the Revolution, residents of Virginia.  They were Loyalists, and had to retreat to the Bahamas fearing for their lives.  After the Revolution they re-entered the US in western Ontario, still mindful that some in Virginia could be vindictive.

Edward I was a magnificent king and great for England.  But for the Scots he was a double-dealing rat.  When Margaret, the Maid of Norway died (1290) leaving the Ceannmor family with no more direct heirs, he offered to mediate between two female branches of the heirs of a brother, the Earl of Huntingdon: Margaret (whence came John Balliol) and Isabel (whence came the Bruces, Earls of Carrick).  Robert Bruce's daughter Marjory married Walter the Steward, whence came the Stewart family, to be changed to the French spelling Stuart by Mary Queen of Scots, formerly Queen of France (m. Francios II).

When the Scots agreed to let Edward I mediate, he (Edward) took it as a sigh of obeisance and fealty...which was well-contradicted at the Battle of Sterling Bridge.  So Edward believed that Wallace's behavior was treason, and the Scots did not.

Edward was a bastard to the Scots, there is no denying this and his weak son allowed the Scottish to regain their independence. The fact is there is no doubt many Scots sided with Edward I and this is beyond doubt where many betrayed their own people to just gain power and wealth. Edward was not stupid in this area by offering lands for allegiance. Maybe I am being unfair to the point that it is easy to betray based on a better life given to the wealthy here and that their subjects have to follow, but again many were complicit here in helping the English. As I say not all Scots agreed with Wallace, in fact many were at odds with him and certainly many betrayed him also, if we are to believe some of the Scottish accounts on all of this and we certainly know of English records that show how Scottish Nobles backed Edward I. What Edward I did well was to play the Nobles off against each other, he played off their greed.

Absolutely.  Throughout the main Island, which goes from low lands in the east (easily conquered), to high lands in the north and west (rough country), the Norse pushed the Kelts back westward.  So it was natural that during the reign of Scottish King David I (1124-51), who was raised in England, that the Scots should invite the Normans (= Norse men, who earlier came down and settled in Fance) to take estates in the eastern lowlands.  Hence, these were English/Scottish nobles that played both sides at the same time.  That was the theme of Braveheart, and the one thing that the film makers got right.

So double-dealing was the name of the game.  But, remember that Wallace came from Renfrewshire, in the west (essentially a suburb of Glasgow now, where the airport is situated).  That's where they dumped all the Kelts.  The sentiment in the west was much less favorable toward the Norman families, and hence the English.

Nemesis wrote:I mean here is a list of a bunch of traitorous scots:

• Donnchadh, Earl of Lennox (1425) – Executed by orders of James I of Scotland
  
• Lord Walter Stewart and Lord Alexander Sewart (1425) – Executed by orders of James I of Scotland
  
• Murdoch Stewart, Duke of Albany (1425) – Executed by order of James I of Scotland
  
• Walter Stewart, 1st Earl of Atholl (1437) – Executed for his part in the murder of James I of Scotland
  
• William Douglas, 6th Earl of Douglas (1440) – Executed on trumped-up charges in front of James II of Scotland
  
• Hugh Douglas, Earl of Ormonde (1455) – Executed on the orders of James II of Scotland
  
• John Douglas, Lord of Balvenie (1463) – Executed on the orders of James III of Scotland
  
• Sir James Hamilton of Finnart – Master of Work to the Crown of Scotland (1540) – Executed by order of James V of Scotland
  
• James Douglas, 4th Earl of Morton (1581) – Executed on the Scottish maiden for complicity in murder of Lord Darnley
  
• William Ruthven, 1st Earl of Gowrie (1584) – Executed by order of James VI of Scotland
  
• John Maxwell, 9th Lord Maxwell (1613) – Beheaded in Edinburgh for carrying out a revenge killing
  
• Patrick Stewart, 2nd Earl of Orkney (1615) – Executed by order of James VI of Scotland
  
• Sir John Gordon, 1st Baronet, of Haddo (1644) – Executed on the Scottish maiden by the Covenanters for treason as a Royalist
  
• Archibald Campbell, 1st Marquess of Argyll (1661) – Executed by order of Charles II of Scotland on the Scottish maiden for treason
  
• Archibald Campbell, 9th Earl of Argyll (1685) – son of above. Executed by order of James VII of Scotland on the Scottish maiden for treason
  
  

I've got a bigger list of traitors than you. Might be a few odd one's in there but I'll let you weed them out


   Waltheof, Earl of Northumbria (1076) – Executed at Winchester by order of William I for taking part in the Revolt of the Earls
   Piers Gaveston (1312) – Executed near Warwick by Thomas, 2nd Earl of Lancaster in the Baron's Revolt
   Thomas, 2nd Earl of Lancaster – Lord High Steward (1322) – Executed at Pontefract by Edward II of England
   Edmund FitzAlan, 9th Earl of Arundel (1326) – Executed at Hereford by Queen Isabella, Regent for Edward III
   Edmund of Woodstock, 1st Earl of Kent – Lord Wardens of the Cinque Ports (1330) – Executed at Winchester by Queen Isabella, Regent for Edward III
   Sir Robert Hales – Lord High Treasurer (1381) – Executed at Tower Hill by rebels during the Peasants' Revolt
   Simon of Sudbury – Lord Chancellor, Archbishop of Canterbury and Bishop of London (1381) – Executed at Tower Hill by rebels during the Peasants' Revolt
   Richard Lyons – London Merchant and Financier (1381) – Beheaded in London by rebels during the Peasants' Revolt
   Sir John Cavendish – Chief Justice of the King's Bench, Chancellor of the University of Cambridge (1381) – Executed in Bury St Edmunds by rebels during the Peasants' Revolt
   Wat Tyler (1381) – Beheaded in London by order of the Lord Mayor of London during the Peasants' Revolt
   John Ball (1381) - Hanged, drawn and quartered at St Albans after the Peasants Revolt
   Sir Simon de Burley, KG (1388) – Executed on Tower Hill by the Merciless Parliament for supporting Richard II of England[6]
   John de Beauchamp (1388) – Executed on Tower Hill by the Merciless Parliament for supporting Richard II of England[6]
   Sir John Berners (1388) – Executed on Tower Hill by the Merciless Parliament for supporting Richard II of England[6]
   Richard FitzAlan, 11th Earl of Arundel, KG (1397) – Executed at Tower Hill by order of Richard II of England[6]
   William le Scrope, 1st Earl of Wiltshire, Sir John Bussy and Sir Henry Green (1399) Executed in Bristol Castle by the Duke of Hereford (soon to be Henry IV of England)
   Ralph de Lumley, 1st Baron Lumley (1400) – Executed at Cirencester during reign of Henry IV for the Epiphany Rising
   Thomas le Despenser, 1st Earl of Gloucester (1400) – Executed at Bristol by order of Henry IV for the Epiphany Rising
   John Holland, 1st Duke of Exeter, KG – Lord Great Chamberlain and Justice of Chester (1400) – Executed at Pleshey Castle, Essex by order of Joan Fitzalan, Countess of Hereford, with the approval of her son-in-law Henry IV, for the Epiphany Rising
   John Montacute, 3rd Earl of Salisbury, KG (1400) – Executed at Cirencester during reign of Henry IV for the Epiphany Rising
   Thomas Holland, 1st Duke of Surrey, KG – Earl Marshal (1400) – Executed at Cirencester during reign of Henry IV for the Epiphany Rising
   Sir Benard Brocas (1400) – Beheaded at Tyburn during reign of Henry IV for the Epiphany Rising
   Thomas Percy, 1st Earl of Worcester (1403) – Executed by order of Henry IV (Hanged, drawn and quartered)
   Sir Richard Vernon (1403) – Executed by order of Henry IV (Hanged, drawn and quartered)
   Sir Richard Venables (1403) – Executed by order of Henry IV (Hanged, drawn and quartered)

   Thomas de Mowbray, 4th Earl of Norfolk – Earl Marshal (1405) – Executed at York by order of Henry IV for treason [7]
   Richard le Scrope Archbishop of York (1405) – Executed at York by order of Henry IV for treason [8]
   Sir William de Plumpton (1405) – Executed by order of Henry IV for treason
   Richard of Conisburgh, 3rd Earl of Cambridge (1415) – Executed at Southampton by order of Henry V of England for his involvement in the Southampton Plot
   Henry Scrope, 3rd Baron Scrope of Masham, KG (1415) – Executed at Southampton by order of Henry V of England for his involvement in the Southampton Plot
   William de la Pole (1450) – Beheaded at sea, possibly by order of Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York
   James Fiennes, 1st Baron Saye and Sele (1450) – Beheaded in London by rebels led by Jack Cade
   James Touchet, 5th Baron Audley (1459) – Executed after Battle of Blore Heath for being a Lancastrian
   Richard Neville, 5th Earl of Salisbury, KG, PC – Lord Chancellor (1460) – Executed after the Battle of Wakefield for being a Yorkist
   Edmund, Earl of Rutland (1460) – Executed by order of Lord Clifford for being a Yorkist (stabbed to death during the Battle of Wakefield and later decapitated)
   Thomas Thorpe, speaker (1461) – Beheaded by a London mob
   Thomas Courtenay, 14th Earl of Devon (1461) – Executed after the Battle of Towton for being a Lancastrian
   Sir Owen Tudor (1461) – Executed after the Battle of Towton for being a Lancastrian
   James Butler, 5th Earl of Ormond – 1st Earl of Wiltshire (1461) – Executed after the Battle of Towton for being a Lancastrian
   Sir Thomas Kyriell (1461) – Executed by order of Margaret of Anjou after the Second Battle of St Albans for being a Yorkist
   William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville (1461) – Executed by order of Margaret of Anjou after the Second Battle of St Albans for being a Yorkist
   John de Vere, 12th Earl of Oxford (1462) – Executed by order of John Tiptoft, 1st Earl of Worcester
   Lord Aubrey de Vere (1462) – Son of John de Vere, 12th Earl of Oxford (1462) – Executed at Tower Hill by order of John Tiptoft, 1st Earl of Worcester[6]
   Henry Beaufort, 3rd Duke of Somerset (1464) – Beheaded after the Battle of Hexham for being a Lancastrian
   Robert Hungerford, 3rd Baron Hungerford (1464) – Beheaded at Newcastle after the Battle of Hexham for being a Lancastrian
   Thomas de Ros, 9th Baron de Ros (1464) – Beheaded at Newcastle after the Battle of Hexham for being a Lancastrian
   Sir Philip Wentworth (1464) – Beheaded at Middleham after the Battle of Hexham for being a Lancastrian
   Sir William Tailboys (1464) – Executed after Battle of Hexham for being a Lancastrian

   Sir Humphrey Neville (1469) – Executed at York by order of Edward IV for being a Lancastrian
   Sir Charles Neville (1469) – Brother of above – Executed at York by order of Edward IV for being a Lancastrian
   Richard Woodville, 1st Earl Rivers – Lord High Treasurer and Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports (1469) – Executed by order of Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick for being a Yorkist
   Sir John Woodville (1469) – Son of above – Executed by order of Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick for being a Yorkist
   Sir Henry Courtenay (1469) – Executed for treason at Salisbury for being a Lancastrian; brother of Sir Hugh Courtenay and the 14th and 15th Earls of Devon who were all executed for being Lancastrians (in 1471, 1461 and 1471 respectively)
   William Herbert, 1st Earl of Pembroke (1468 creation) (1469) – Executed after Battle of Edgecote Moor for being a Yorkist
   Sir Richard Herbert (1469) – Executed after Battle of Edgecote Moor for being a Yorkist, also illegitimate son of the above
   Humphrey Stafford, 1st Earl of Devon (1469) – Captured and executed in Bridgewater for being a Yorkist
   Richard Welles, 7th Baron Welles (1470) – Executed on battlefield of Losecote by order of Edward IV for being a Lancastrian
   Sir Thomas Dymoke (1470) – Executed on battlefield of Losecote by order of Edward IV for being a Lancastrian
   Robert Welles, 8th Baron Willoughby de Eresby (1470) – Son of Richard Welles; executed after Battle of Losecoat by order of Edward IV for being a Lancastrian

   John Tiptoft, 1st Earl of Worcester – Lord High Treasurer (1470) – Executed at Tower Hill by order of Henry VI for being a Yorkist[6]
   Edmund Beaufort, 4th Duke of Somerset (1471) – Beheaded after the Battle of Tewkesbury for being a Lancastrian
   John Courtenay, 15th Earl of Devon (1471) – Beheaded after the Battle of Tewkesbury for being a Lancastrian
   Sir Hugh Courtenay (1471) – Beheaded after the Battle of Tewkesbury for being a Lancastrian
   Sir Gervase Clifton (1471) – Beheaded after the Battle of Tewkesbury for being a Lancastrian
   John Delves (1471) – Beheaded after the Battle of Tewkesbury for being a Lancastrian[9] (The eldest son of Sir John Delves, who was killed in the battle.)
   Sir Thomas Tresham – MP for Buckinghamshire, Huntingdonshire and Northamptonshire, High Sheriff of Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire, High Sheriff of Sussex, High Sheriff of Surrey, Comptroller of the Household, Speaker of the House of Commons (1471) – Beheaded after the Battle of Tewkesbury for being a Lancastrian
   Sir John Langstrother – Grand Prior of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem (1471) – Beheaded after the Battle of Tewkesbury for being a Lancastrian
   Sir Thomas Neville, the Bastard of Fauconberg (1471) – Executed at Middleham Castle or Southampton by order of Edward IV for being a Lancastrian[10]
   Sir Thomas Vaughan (1483) – Executed by order of Richard III even though he was a Yorkist
   William Hastings, 1st Baron Hastings (1483) – Executed near Tower Chapel by order of Richard III for being a Lancastrian [6]
   Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham – Lord High Constable (1483) – Beheaded at Shrewsbury by order of Richard III for being too close to the crown and also for being a Lancastrian
   Anthony Woodville, 2nd Earl Rivers – Chief Butler of England (1483) – Executed at Pontefract castle by order of Richard III for being a Lancastrian and uncle of the below
   Sir Richard Grey (1483) – Executed at Pontefract Castle by order of Richard III for being a Lancastrian and nephew of the above
   Sir Thomas St Leger (1483) – Beheaded at Exeter for rebellion against his brother-in-law Richard III
   William Catesby (1485) – Beheaded at Leicester by order of Henry VII of England after the Battle of Bosworth for being a Yorkist
   Sir William Stanley (1495) – Executed at Tower Hill by order of Henry VII of England for supporting the pretender Perkin Warbeck [6]
   James Tuchet, 7th Baron Audley (1497) – Executed at Tower Hill by order of Henry VII of England for opposing taxation[6]
   Edward Plantagenet, 17th Earl of Warwick – Heir to the English Throne from 9 April 1484 – March 1485 (1499) – Executed at Tower Hill by order of Henry VII of England[6]
   Sir James Tyrrell (1502) – Executed at Tower Hill by order of Henry VII of England for treason [6]
   Sir John Wyndham (1502) – Executed at Tower Hill by order of Henry VII of England for treason [6]
   Sir Edmund Dudley – Speaker of the House of Commons (1510) – Executed at Tower Hill by order of Henry VIII of England for extortion [6]
   Sir Richard Empson – Speaker of the House of Commons, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1510) – Executed at Tower Hill by order of Henry VIII of England for extortion [6]
   Sir Andrew Barton – High Admiral of Scotland (1511) – executed on capture as a pirate, according to ballads.
   Edmund de la Pole, 3rd Duke of Suffolk (1513) – Executed at Tower Hill by order of Henry VIII of England as Yorkist claimant to throne[6]
   Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham, KG – Lord High Steward and Lord High Constable (1521) – Executed at Tower Hill by order of Henry VIII of England as claimant to throne [6]
   Sir Rhys ap Gruffydd (1531) – Executed at Tower Hill by order of Henry VIII of England for conspiracy with Scotland [6]
   Saint John Fisher – Catholic Bishop of Rochester (1535) – Executed at Tower Hill by order of Henry VIII of England for refusing to take Oath of Supremacy [6]
   Sir Thomas More – Lord Chancellor, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Speaker of the House of Commons (1535) – Executed at Tower Hill by order of Henry VIII of England for refusing to take Oath of Supremacy[6]

   Anne Boleyn – Queen of England and Henry's Wife (1536) – Executed by sword at the Tower of London by order of Henry VIII of England for High Treason[6]
   George Boleyn, Viscount Rochford (1536) – Executed at Tower Hill by order of Henry VIII of England for High Treason[6]
   Sir Henry Norris – Groom of the Stool (1536) – Executed at Tower Hill by order of Henry VIII of England for High Treason[6]
   Sir William Brereton, KB – Groom of the Privy Chamber (1536) – Executed at Tower Hill by order of Henry VIII of England for High Treason[6]
   Sir Francis Weston – Gentleman of the Privy Chamber (1536) – Executed at Tower Hill by order of Henry VIII of England for High Treason[6]
   Mark Smeaton (1536) – Executed at Tower Hill by order of Henry VIII of England for High Treason[6]

   Thomas Darcy, 1st Baron Darcy de Darcy, KG (1537) – Beheaded at Tower Hill by order of Henry VIII of England for being in the Pilgrimage of Grace[6]
   John Hussey, 1st Baron Hussey of Sleaford – Chief Butler of England (1537) – Beheaded at Lincoln by order of Henry VIII of England for being in the Pilgrimage of Grace
   Sir Nicholas Tempest (1537) – Hung, drawn and quartered by order of Henry VIII of England for being in Bigod's Rebellion
   Sir Edward Neville (1538) – Beheaded at Tower Hill by order of Henry VIII of England for being in Bigod's Rebellion[6]

   Henry Pole, 11th Baron Montacute (1539) – Executed at Tower Hill by order of Henry VIII of England for being in Exeter Conspiracy[6]
   Henry Courtenay, 1st Marquess of Exeter, KG, PC, Lord Warden of the Stannaries (1539) – Executed at Tower Hill by order of Henry VIII of England for being in Exeter Conspiracy [6]
   Sir Nicholas Carew, KG, PC – Master of the Horse (1539) – Executed at Tower Hill by order of Henry VIII of England for being in Exeter Conspiracy [6]
   Sir Thomas Dingley (1539) – Executed at Tower Hill by order of Henry VIII of England for being implicated in the Pilgrimage of Grace[6]
   Blessed Sir Adrian Fortescue (1539) – Executed by order of Henry VIII of England for Catholicism [6]
   Richard Whiting, Abbot of Glastonbury (1539) – Executed on Glastonbury Tor by order of Thomas Cromwell (hung, drawn and quartered)

   Thomas Cromwell, 1st Earl of Essex, KG, PC – Secretary of State, Master of the Rolls, Lord Privy Seal, Governor of the Isle of Wight, Justice in Eyre, Lord Great Chamberlain (1540) – Executed at Tower Hill by order of Henry VIII of England for treason [6]
   Walter Hungerford, 1st Baron Hungerford of Heytesbury (1540) – Executed at Tower Hill by order of Henry VIII of England for high treason and buggery[11]
   Leonard Grey, 1st Viscount Grane – Lord Deputy of Ireland (1541) – Executed at Tower Hill by order of Henry VIII of England for High Treason after allowing the escape of his nephew Gerald FitzGerald, 11th Earl of Kildare[6]
   Margaret Pole, 8th Countess of Salisbury (1541) – Executed at Tower Green by order of Henry VIII of England for high treason[6]
   Catherine Howard – Queen of England and Henry's Wife (1542) – Executed at Tower Green by order of Henry VIII of England for High Treason[6]
   Sir Thomas Culpepper (1541) – Executed at Tyburn by order of Henry VIII for high treason (adultery with the queen)
   Jane Boleyn, Viscountess Rochford – Wife of executed George Boleyn, Viscount Rochford and sister-in-law of Anne Boleyn (1542) – Executed at Tower Green by order of Henry VIII of England for High Treason [6]
   Sir John Neville of Chevet (1546) – Executed by order of Henry VIII of England
   Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, KG – Earl Marshal (1547) – Executed at Tower Hill during the reign of Henry VIII of England for treason [6]

   Thomas Seymour, 1st Baron Seymour of Sudeley – Master-General of the Ordnance, Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, Lord High Admiral, also was the husband of Henry VIII sixth wife and widow Catherine Parr and the brother of Henry's third wife Jane Seymour (1549) – Beheaded for treason at Tower Hill during the reign of Edward VI of England [6]
   Edward Seymour, 1st Duke of Somerset, KG, PC, Earl Marshal, Lord High Treasurer, Lord High Admiral, Lord Protector of England in the period between the death of Henry VIII in 1547 and his own indictment in 1549 (1552) – Executed at Tower Hill during the reign of Edward VI of England for plotting murder of John Dudley[6]
   Sir Thomas Arundell of Lanherne – Gentleman of the Privy Chamber (1552) – Beheaded at Tower Hill during the reign of Edward VI of England for treason [6][12]
   Sir Michael Stanhope – Chief Gentleman of the Privy Chamber (1552) – Beheaded at Tower Hill during the reign of Edward VI of England for treason [12]
   John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland, KG – Vice-Admiral, Lord Admiral, Governor of Boulogne, President of the Council in the Marches, Lord Great Chamberlain, Grand Master of the Royal Household, Earl Marshal of England, Lord President of the Council, Warden General of the Scottish Marches (1553) – Executed at Tower Hill by order of Mary I for supporting Lady Jane Grey [6]
   Sir John Gates KB (1553) – Executed at Tower Hill by order of Mary I for supporting Lady Jane Grey [13]
   Sir Thomas Palmer (1553) – Executed at Tower Hill by order of Mary I for supporting Lady Jane Grey [6]
   Lady Jane Grey – Queen of England 10–19 July 1553 and Heir to the English and Irish Thrones 21 June – 10 July 1553 (1554) – Executed at Tower Green by Mary I as claimant to throne [6]
   Lord Guilford Dudley – Son of John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland and Royal Consort of England 10–19 July 1553 (1554) – Executed at Tower Hill by order of Mary I for supporting Lady Jane Grey [6]
   Henry Grey, 1st Duke of Suffolk, KG – Father of the above, Lord Lieutenant of Leicestershire, Justice in Eyre (1554) – Executed at Tower Hill by order of Mary I for rebellion [6]
   Sir Thomas Wyatt the Younger (1554) – Executed at Tower Hill by order of Mary I for rebellion [6]
   Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of Norfolk, KG – Earl Marshal (1573) – Executed at Tower Hill by order of Elizabeth I of England for Ridolfi plot[6]
   Thomas Percy, 7th Earl of Northumberland (1572) – Executed at York during the reign of Elizabeth I of England for taking part in the Rising of the North
   Sir Thomas Doughty (1578) – Executed by order of Sir Francis Drake
   Edward Arden (1583) – Executed at Tyburn during the reign of Elizabeth I of England for high treason (hanged, drawn and quartered)
   Sir Francis Throckmorton (1584) – Executed during the reign of Elizabeth I of England
   Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex, KG – Master of the Horse, Earl Marshal, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Custos Rotulorum of Pembrokeshire, Custos Rotulorum of Staffordshire, Master-General of the Ordnance (1601) – Executed at Tower Hill during the reign of Elizabeth I of England for High Treason[6]
   Sir Christopher Blount (1601) – Executed at Tower Hill during the reign of Elizabeth I of England for High Treason[6]
   Sir Charles Danvers (1601) – Executed at Tower Hill during the reign of Elizabeth I of England for High Treason[14]

   Sir Walter Raleigh – Lord Warden of the Stannaries, Lord Lieutenant of Cornwall, Vice-Admiral of Devon, Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard, Governor of Jersey (1618) – Executed in the Old Palace Yard, Westminster by orders of James VI
   Mervyn Touchet, 2nd Earl of Castlehaven – Executed at Tower Hill for aiding buggery (1631)[6]
   Thomas Wentworth, 1st Earl of Strafford, KG – Custos Rotulorum of the West Riding of Yorkshire, Lord Lieutenant of Yorkshire, Lord Deputy of Ireland, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1641) – Executed at Tower Hill on orders of Parliament[6]
   Archbishop William Laud – Archbishop of Canterbury (1645) – Executed at Tower Hill on orders of Parliament [6]
   Sir John Hotham the Younger (2 January 1645) – Executed at Tower Hill on orders of Parliament for betraying the parliamentarians to the Royalists [6]
   Sir John Hotham, 1st Baronet the Elder, of Scarborough (died 3 January 1645) – Father of above – Executed for betraying the parliamentarians to the Royalists [6]
   Charles I of England and Scotland (1649) – Executed in Whitehall, London by order of Cromwell's Parliament
   Arthur Capell, 1st Baron Capell of Hadham (1649) – Executed by order of Cromwell's Parliament for being a Royalist
   Henry Rich, 1st Earl of Holland, KG – Master of the Horse, Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard, Lord Lieutenant of Berkshire, Lord Lieutenant of Middlesex, Justice in Eyre (1649) – Executed in London by order of Cromwell's Parliament for being a Royalist
   Sir Henry Hyde (1650) – Beheaded in London by order of Cromwell's Parliament for being a Royalist
   Eusebius Andrews (1650) - Beheaded on Tower Hill for treason as a Royalist.
   James Stanley, 7th Earl of Derby, KG – Lord Lieutenant of Cheshire, Lancashire, Vice-Admiral of Cheshire (1651) – Executed at Bolton by order of Cromwell's Parliament for being a Royalist
   Sir John Penruddock (1619–1655) – Executed at Exeter by order of Cromwell's Parliament for being a Royalist
   Sir Henry Slingsby, 1st Baronet (1658) – Beheaded on Tower Hill, London by order of Cromwell's Parliament for being a Royalist [6]
   Reverend Dr. John Huett (1658) – Beheaded on Tower Hill, London by order of Cromwell's Parliament for being a Royalist [6]
   Gregory Clement (1660) (MP) - Hanged, drawn and quartered at Charing Cross by Charles II as a regicide [15]
   Oliver Cromwell (1661) – Posthumously beheaded by order of Charles II
   Sir Henry Vane the Younger (1662) – Executed at Tower Hill by order of Charles II for the death of his father Charles I [6]
   John Twyn (1663) – Hanged, drawn, quartered and beheaded (and head displayed on a Ludgate spike) for publishing an anonymous pamphlet justifying the right of rebellion against the king
   William Howard, 1st Viscount Stafford (1680) – Executed at Tower Hill for treason [6]
   Saint Oliver Plunkett (1681) – Hung, drawn and quartered in London for treason
   William Russell, Lord Russell – Member of Parliament for Tavistock and Tavistock (1683) – Executed for being involved with the Rye House Plot
   Algernon Sidney (1683) – Executed at Tower Hill for being involved with the Rye House Plot[6]
   Sir Thomas Armstrong – Member of Parliament for Stafford (1684) – Executed by order of Judge Jeffreys for supporting Monmouth
   James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth (1685) – Executed at Tower Hill in reign of James II after the Battle of Sedgemoor for treason[6]
   Lady Alice Lisle (1685) – Executed at Winchester by Judge Jeffreys during the Bloody Assizes for harbouring Monmouth rebels

English Nazi Collaborators...

John Amery
George Armstrong
Norman Ballie-Stewart
Leonard Banning
Douglas Berneville-Claye
Kenneth Berry
Norah Biscoe
William Brtittain
Harold Cole
Thomas Cooper
Gertrude Hiscox
Oswald John Job
Roy Walter Purdy
Theodore William John Schurch
Duncan Scott-Ford
John Leister
Francis Paul Maton
Alfred Minchin
Frank McLardy
Eric Pleasants
Walter Purdy
Theodore Schurch
Duncan Scott-Ford
William Shearer
Henry Alfred Symonds
John George Lingshaw
Francis Maton

More recent and English lefties at that I suppose so there's a bonus for you.

Kim Philby
Donal Duart McLean
Guy Burgess
Anthony Blunt


So by your logic it's the English that tend to be traitors.

National disgrace. The England football team 1938

Irn Bru wrote:National disgrace. The England football team 1938

I agree its a disgrace.
But they pale into comparrison the amount of scots that betrayed their own people.
Again the amount of Scots throughout history that have jumped into bed with the English as Collaborators is staggering. Now you can choose to ignore this or face the facts my point was very valid.

Nemesis wrote:You are welcome to your views of him Quill and have no wish to sway you either way. /quote]

Followed by the following in the same post

P.S. You seem to have a short term memory loss over the witch hunt against you in regards to the Golden gate Bridge Drama. Just be mindful, is all I will advise you in who you place your trust.

I nearly choked on my porridge when I read that this morning

You have obviously looked back quite far on the posts that have taken place on this site in the past and noted that Quill and I have had our differences in the past but we get on just fine most of the time - respectfully as well. I have made the point often enough about how much I admire his knowledge of our historical heritage which is second to none on this site. I have complimented his writing skills more than once and pointed out the brilliance of a recent submission he made as being one of the finest pieces of writing that I have ever seen on this site or any other that I have been on – a view echoed by a few others as well.

I also saw the point he was making on racism in America even if you couldn’t. It couldn’t be more obvious if you tried that this is just a pathetic attempt to indulge in a bit of shit-stiring by bringing up past differences between people which considering the short time you have been on this site is quite sad really.

Nemesis wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:National disgrace. The England football team 1938

I agree its a disgrace.
But they pale into comparrison the amount of scots that betrayed their own people.
Again the amount of Scots throughout history that have jumped into bed with the English as Collaborators is staggering. Now you can choose to ignore this or face the facts my point was very valid.

Read the list of Nazi Collaborators that betrayed their own people. Mind boggling in'it?

Are you ashamed of them?

Irn Bru wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


I agree its a disgrace.
But they pale into comparrison the amount of scots that betrayed their own people.
Again the amount of Scots throughout history that have jumped into bed with the English as Collaborators is staggering. Now you can choose to ignore this or face the facts my point was very valid.

Read the list of Nazi Collaborators that betrayed their own people. Mind boggling in'it?

Are you ashamed of them?

Ashamed is the wrong word I would be looking for, they were traitors and some were rightly hanged

I am more disgusted at the Scots who jumped into bed with the English that offered them lands they confiscated off the Irish, which later led to the problems in Northern Ireland. How much trouble and deaths could have been avoided if these greedy traitors had not jumped into bed with the English? You keep avoiding the point of the Scots themselves it seems

Nemesis wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


I agree its a disgrace.
But they pale into comparrison the amount of scots that betrayed their own people.
Again the amount of Scots throughout history that have jumped into bed with the English as Collaborators is staggering. Now you can choose to ignore this or face the facts my point was very valid.

Read the list of Nazi Collaborators that betrayed their own people. Mind boggling in'it?

Are you ashamed of them?

Ashamed is the wrong word I would be looking for, they were traitors and some were rightly hanged

I am more disgusted at the Scots who jumped into bed with the English that offered them lands they confiscated off the Irish, which later led to the problems in Northern Ireland. How much trouble and deaths could have been avoided if these greedy traitors had not jumped into bed with the English? You keep avoiding the point of the Scots themselves it seems

I'm more disgusted at the English that jumped into bed with the Nazi's. Aren't you?

As for the Irish. The real shame in that is the way they were treated by the English with the massacres, the hangings and the cleansing of lands. Go and look up the atrocities they carried out under Cromwell and Henry Ireton etc. And if you can find Cromwell's head give it a good kicking for the Irish.

Irn Bru wrote:

Nemesis wrote:

Ashamed is the wrong word I would be looking for, they were traitors and some were rightly hanged

I am more disgusted at the Scots who jumped into bed with the English that offered them lands they confiscated off the Irish, which later led to the problems in Northern Ireland. How much trouble and deaths could have been avoided if these greedy traitors had not jumped into bed with the English? You keep avoiding the point of the Scots themselves it seems

I'm more disgusted at the English that jumped into bed with the Nazi's. Aren't you?

As for the Irish. The real shame in that is the way they were treated by the English with the massacres, the hangings and the cleansing of lands. Go and look up the atrocities they carried out under Cromwell and Henry Ireton etc. And if you can find Cromwell's head give it a good kicking for the Irish.

Being half Irish not really, as it has very much affected my family to the point two of my uncles were murdered by the IRA, of which I cannot stand either. The point is would the troubles in Northern Ireland have lasted to this day if not the Scottish traitors had been so greedy jumping into bed with the English? I condemn the English also for what they did to Ireland and have never disputed this, but again you miss how the Scottish were very complicit with trying to help the English ethnically cleanse Ireland.

Nemesis wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Nemesis wrote:

Ashamed is the wrong word I would be looking for, they were traitors and some were rightly hanged

I am more disgusted at the Scots who jumped into bed with the English that offered them lands they confiscated off the Irish, which later led to the problems in Northern Ireland. How much trouble and deaths could have been avoided if these greedy traitors had not jumped into bed with the English? You keep avoiding the point of the Scots themselves it seems

I'm more disgusted at the English that jumped into bed with the Nazi's. Aren't you?

As for the Irish. The real shame in that is the way they were treated by the English with the massacres, the hangings and the cleansing of lands. Go and look up the atrocities they carried out under Cromwell and Henry Ireton etc. And if you can find Cromwell's head give it a good kicking for the Irish.

Being half Irish not really, as it has very much affected my family to the point two of my uncles were murdered by the IRA, of which I cannot stand either. The point is would the troubles in Northern Ireland have lasted to this day if not the Scottish traitors had been so greedy jumping into bed with the English? I condemn the English also for what they did to Ireland and have never disputed this, but again you miss how the Scottish were very complicit with trying to help the English ethnically cleanse Ireland.

You are not really disgusted at the way the English traitors jumped into bed with the Nazi's! Am I reading that right?

I can't believe you said that. You are no patriot to this country.

Irn Bru wrote:

Nemesis wrote:

Being half Irish not really, as it has very much affected my family to the point two of my uncles were murdered by the IRA, of which I cannot stand either. The point is would the troubles in Northern Ireland have lasted to this day if not the Scottish traitors had been so greedy jumping into bed with the English? I condemn the English also for what they did to Ireland and have never disputed this, but again you miss how the Scottish were very complicit with trying to help the English ethnically cleanse Ireland.

You are not really disgusted at the way the English traitors jumped into bed with the Nazi's! Am I reading that right?

I can't believe you said that. You are no patriot to this country.

Why should I be when I am half Irish?
Again what concerns me more is those that cause problems in Ireland more than it would the place I grew up. Sure its appalling they would betray Britain, but to me no where near as bad as the Scottish scum that betrayed their country through greed taking up confiscated land. Of which their descendents have played a major part in the problems in Northern Ireland.

Nemesis wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Nemesis wrote:

Being half Irish not really, as it has very much affected my family to the point two of my uncles were murdered by the IRA, of which I cannot stand either. The point is would the troubles in Northern Ireland have lasted to this day if not the Scottish traitors had been so greedy jumping into bed with the English? I condemn the English also for what they did to Ireland and have never disputed this, but again you miss how the Scottish were very complicit with trying to help the English ethnically cleanse Ireland.

You are not really disgusted at the way the English traitors jumped into bed with the Nazi's! Am I reading that right?

I can't believe you said that. You are no patriot to this country.

Why should I be when I am half Irish?
Again what concerns me more is those that cause problems in Ireland more than it would the place I grew up. Sure its appalling they would betray Britain, but to me no where near as bad as the Scottish scum that betrayed their country through greed taking up confiscated land. Of which their descendents have played a major part in the problems in Northern Ireland.

Ever been to Traitor's Gate? How many barges full of people went through that?

Find out and let me me later

Irn Bru wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


Why should I be when I am half Irish?
Again what concerns me more is those that cause problems in Ireland more than it would the place I grew up. Sure its appalling they would betray Britain, but to me no where near as bad as the Scottish scum that betrayed their country through greed taking up confiscated land. Of which their descendents have played a major part in the problems in Northern Ireland.

Ever been to Traitor's Gate? How many barges full of people went through that?

Find out and let me me later

I am more interested why at no point you have condemned the Scots who have betrayed your own country. Not concerned about anything else and never will be on this thread hence why you always avoid the main points when you get so easily taken to task. That says to me you do not see them as traitors then, making you culpable to their crimes. This is what you always do in a debate, you get points raised to you and deflect with other points failing to address what has been posted to you. Hey ho, I have gotten used to your poor debating skills now, where you avoid things at all costs, because you have no answer. You can prove me wrong and condemn those who have, but we both now the centruries of Scots jumping into bed with the English is astounding.

Nemesis wrote:

korban dallas wrote:using your logic
Gandhi was a traitor

the American Revolutionaries where traitors
in fact any body who sort self rule from England are traitors

It shows you know little about history.
It matters little what you think about Wallace, to the English he was a traitor and most of the stories about Wallace are suspect to say the least based o the sources because either English and Scottish are going to be biased either way and it is finding fact from fiction of which much fiction has been centered around Wallace.All of which is irrelevant anyway as this point was merely used to take the piss. The American Revolutionaries were traitors to the British. You need to understand who is defined by which group that are. The Revolutionaries would not have seen themselves as traitors, but again many also sided with the British where they would have been seen as traitors. It works both ways how people would be classed as traitors dependent on the cause

What is relevant is many Scots certainly collaborated with the English for centuries making many of them traitors to the Scots. You clearly need to follow the thread correctly and am sorry but the Scottish history is not much to write home about, apart from a few instances of Scottish glory like the Battle of Bannockburn. There is plenty of accounts of bravery by Scots but in much of their history many have sided with the English and like as I stated took up offers by the English to take lands confiscated by the English in Ireland. This was instrumental to the problems faced in Northern Ireland creating an imbalance of Protestants in the area, so much so that it caused violence and strife. The English tried to basically ethnically cleanse the area of Irish Catholics. Northern Ireland was for many years discriminating against  Catholics, one being my own father. Who after my parents married in Canada, they left because my mother did not like the climate and came to Northern Ireland. Here at every turn he was turned down for a job because he was Catholic. He was left with only be able to join the British army. So I have a very strong case to quite rightly call many Scottish traitors to their own people. You may not like this but its history is riddled with this. There is no doubt the problems of Northern Ireland would not have been what they were without this intervention in history and most of the Protestants in Northern Ireland are descendents from the Scots who took up this English offer. So when I say many Scots were traitors to their own people, they most certainly were.

No
What it shows is once again you claim a superior knowledge and belittle others who disagree with your view

the extract was from the BBC history page

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/wallace_william.shtml

so once again your telling experts they are wrong and once again you know better .......now where`s that picture  

And try looking in a dictionary for a definition of the word traitor i did post it for you but look it up for your self

Scotland is a nation not some county in England Wallace was a scot He may have been a rebel

Rebel
definition, a person who refuses allegiance to, resists, or rises in arms against the government or ruler of his or her country.
So he wasn`t a traitor to the English your comparison or indictment shows that you are the one lacking in English language comprehension  

the victors in war tend to be the ones who write the history in there favour i know i was taught in England and for years thought Harold was shot in the eye with a arrow The romantic way for a king to die and its still taught to be true   it wasn`t till later i discovered that was bullshit like a lot of English written history full of self aggrandisement  

But i forget your the expert in absolutely every thing under the sun there is a word for that in the dictionary as well "HUbris"definition, excessive pride or self-confidence; arrogance. and you have that in spades

look at the cannabis thread when you made the same claims about my knowledge of the subject or the TR thread where you claimed one torpedo would sink her all topics you refused to accept the facts where you claimed  superior knowledge and belittled me and claimed  did not know what i was talking about and of you flounced only to re appear less than 24 hours later under a new name
and once again we go down that road with you
And you may not like Irn i have no problem with that ,i don`t like you but i don`t question the poster and use my dislike of them as a excuse to be little them or question there sincerity or honesty

you really need to grow up and talk to people with out casting aspersions on there character or education

Sorry showing me a BBC link is as about as useless as the BBC itself when it come to understanding history, where again much of what is known about William Wallace is based on hearsay. There is little to go on to know what is fact, so again this is not trying to belittle you put the fact I have stuided history very well and understand it extremely well, hence why you see no such problems when I am debating Quill here.

Wallace was tried as a traitor because he fought against the English, so I have no need to look up the definition of the word. If you think he was wronged, then that is up to you, but the English did not think so being as they were in controll of these lands.

Victors do tend to write a distorted history, none of which I have not discounted and hence why as already stated, there is little facts to go on in regards to William Wallace or did you miss that part in my last reply?

Your defense now stems from one debate where I correctly told you I was wrong. What you have avoided is every other point I made in regards to the Scottish where on countless times in history they have betrayed the Scottish people themselves by jumping into bed with the English. Being classed a traitor works both ways, just like how Wallace was deemed a triator by the English so the Scots will class those who jumped into bed with the Edward I as traitors. As to all your points about me, they are childish and very tiresome. Either debate the points at hand or jog on. Its that simple as I am not going to waste my time with such immaturity.

You have a choice now, which way you decide will decide if this debate continues.

Oh and for the record, I left because you claimed I was lying about my sister, which I never would, it rightly angered me, of which I calmed down later. I do not have time for people that would make such an accusation. I have moved on and again you were very wrong in regards to the debate around the aircraft carriers. Not concerend that you do not agree. That clears that up. Again this can continue with civility or you will just end up making the debate stop, your choice not mine.

Nemesis wrote:Oh and for the record, I left because you claimed I was lying about my sister, which I never would, it rightly angered me, of which I calmed down later. I do not have time for people that would make such an accusation. I have moved on and again you were very wrong in regards to the debate around the aircraft carriers. Not concerend that you do not agree. That clears that up. Again this can continue with civility or you will just end up making the debate stop, your choice not mine.

For the record i did not say you where lying about your sister i said i didn`t believe you and that it sounded convenient however i took the time to ask somebody else that has now been verified and you have my condolences

i am all ways civil unless confronted with abuse then i return in kind as i have been on every occasion

korban dallas wrote:

Nemesis wrote:Oh and for the record, I left because you claimed I was lying about my sister, which I never would, it rightly angered me, of which I calmed down later. I do not have time for people that would make such an accusation. I have moved on and again you were very wrong in regards to the debate around the aircraft carriers. Not concerend that you do not agree. That clears that up. Again this can continue with civility or you will just end up making the debate stop, your choice not mine.

For the record i did not say you where lying about your sister i said i didn`t believe you and that it sounded convenient however i took the time to ask somebody else  that has now been verified and you have my condolences

i am all ways civil unless confronted with abuse then i return in kind as i have been on every occasion
 

There is no difference.
I was not abusive here either, all I did was dispute your claim and you claimed that was trying to belittle you, no I just do not agree with you.
Anyway have things to do and have moved on from before.
So have a nice afternoon.

Nemesis wrote:Sorry showing me a BBC link is as about as useless as the BBC itself when it come to understanding history, where again much of what is known about William Wallace is based on hearsay. There is little to go on to know what is fact, so again this is not trying to belittle you put the fact I have stuided history very well and understand it extremely well, hence why you see no such problems when I am debating Quill here.

Wallace was tried as a traitor because he fought against the English, so I have no need to look up the definition of the word. If you think he was wronged, then that is up to you, but the English did not think so being as they were in controll of these lands.

Victors do tend to write a distorted history, none of which I have not discounted and hence why as already stated, there is little facts to go on in regards to William Wallace or did you miss that part in my last reply?

Your defense now stems from one debate where I correctly told you I was wrong. What you have avoided is every other point I made in regards to the Scottish where on countless times in history they have betrayed the Scottish people themselves by jumping into bed with the English. Being classed a traitor works both ways, just like how Wallace was deemed a triator by the English so the Scots will class those who jumped into bed with the Edward I as traitors. As to all your points about me, they are childish and very tiresome. Either debate the points at hand or jog on. Its that simple as I am not going to waste my time with such immaturity.

You have a choice now, which way you decide will decide if this debate continues.

see once again experts are wrong and you are right regardless ,,,,its so .......well you really

"As to all your points about me, they are childish and very tiresome."

one could argue the same about you and IRN more effectively than me
perhaps you should take your own advice or is it one rule for you and everybody else is wrong experts in the topics as well

Nemesis wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
For the record i did not say you where lying about your sister i said i didn`t believe you and that it sounded convenient however i took the time to ask somebody else  that has now been verified and you have my condolences

i am all ways civil unless confronted with abuse then i return in kind as i have been on every occasion
 

There is no difference.
I was not abusive here either, all I did was dispute your claim and you claimed that was trying to belittle you, no I just do not agree with you.
Anyway have things to do and have moved on from before.
So have a nice afternoon.

and i have not been abusive ether
and there is a big difference that`s your poor comprehension skills coming in to play

not believing something is not the same as calling somebody a outright liar something i did not do

a liar is somebody who knows the facts and chooses to disregard them or make other facts up to bolster there position or win a point  
not believing somebody based on available knowledge leaves the door open to be proved wrong as i was

korban dallas wrote:

Nemesis wrote:

There is no difference.
I was not abusive here either, all I did was dispute your claim and you claimed that was trying to belittle you, no I just do not agree with you.
Anyway have things to do and have moved on from before.
So have a nice afternoon.

and i have not been abusive ether
and there is a big difference that`s your poor comprehension skills coming in to play

not believing something is not the same as calling somebody a outright liar something i did not do

a liar is somebody who knows the facts and chooses to disregard them or make other facts up to bolster there position or win a point  
not believing somebody based on available knowledge leaves the door open to be proved wrong as i was

Look, claiming you do not believe me is stating I am lying, there is no two ways about this and you can dress that up anyway you like. Second she was disabled and had a rare disorder and her dying so young is upsetting to me to then have the mock disabilities with your poor choice of words.
Again I am not now concerned anymore. Third William Wallace was executed as a traitor by the English, this is an undeniable fact and has nothing to do with an experts who again have to go off dubious sources on his actual life. This point was alsop stated to you as taking more the piss. Fourth, at every turn you have avoided those Scots who betrayed their own country, which has happened countless times in history, one being those who took up consfiscated lands in Ireland. So when you try and claim I am wrong, nothing you have stated has shown any point I am wrong over. If you cannot understand that, then I suggest you read back and see if anywhere you think I am wrong and point this out.
As to Irn, I have no respect for him and make no apologies for this.
If you think I am wrong on the history here, then please be my guest and show where I am wrong and what experts disagree with me.

Over to you

Nemesis wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
and i have not been abusive ether
and there is a big difference that`s your poor comprehension skills coming in to play

not believing something is not the same as calling somebody a outright liar something i did not do

a liar is somebody who knows the facts and chooses to disregard them or make other facts up to bolster there position or win a point  
not believing somebody based on available knowledge leaves the door open to be proved wrong as i was

Look, claiming you do not believe me is stating I am lying, there is no two ways about this and you can dress that up anyway you like. Second she was disabled and had a rare disorder and her dying so young is upsetting to me to then have the mock disabilities with your poor choice of words.
Again I am not now concerned anymore. Third William Wallace was executed as a traitor by the English, this is an undeniable fact and has nothing to do with an experts who again have to go off dubious sources on his actual life. This point was alsop stated to you as taking more the piss. Fourth, at every turn you have avoided those Scots who betrayed their own country, which has happened countless times in history, one being those who took up consfiscated lands in Ireland. So when you try and claim I am wrong, nothing you have stated has shown any point I am wrong over. If you cannot understand that, then I suggest you read back and see if anywhere you think I am wrong and point this out.
As to Irn, I have no respect for him and make no apologies for this.
If you think I am wrong on the history here, then please be my guest and show where I am wrong and what experts disagree with me.

Over to you

Mock people with disability's ?? your bloody nuts dude i am the last person on this planet who would mock anybody with a disability and the fact you try to make that claim is disgusting. crap
and claiming i dont believe something is not an accusation your lying and you trying to twist it as such shows what a despicable person you are


but hears something i do think you lying about your alleged PHD that you claim to have that i suspect is a complete and utter lie

and i will happily say a lot of scots where traitors to Scotland

korban dallas wrote:

Nemesis wrote:

Look, claiming you do not believe me is stating I am lying, there is no two ways about this and you can dress that up anyway you like. Second she was disabled and had a rare disorder and her dying so young is upsetting to me to then have the mock disabilities with your poor choice of words.
Again I am not now concerned anymore. Third William Wallace was executed as a traitor by the English, this is an undeniable fact and has nothing to do with an experts who again have to go off dubious sources on his actual life. This point was alsop stated to you as taking more the piss. Fourth, at every turn you have avoided those Scots who betrayed their own country, which has happened countless times in history, one being those who took up consfiscated lands in Ireland. So when you try and claim I am wrong, nothing you have stated has shown any point I am wrong over. If you cannot understand that, then I suggest you read back and see if anywhere you think I am wrong and point this out.
As to Irn, I have no respect for him and make no apologies for this.
If you think I am wrong on the history here, then please be my guest and show where I am wrong and what experts disagree with me.

Over to you

Mock people with disability's ?? your bloody nuts dude i am the last person on this planet who would mock anybody with a disability and the fact you try to make that claim is disgusting. crap
and claiming i dont believe something is not an accusation your lying and you trying to twist it as such shows what a despicable person you are

I am not nuts, I stated she was disabled, you called me Forest as in Forest Gump and you are basically mocking a person with disabilities even though ficticious.
So its not crap, what you stated I found in very poior taste.
Again claiming you do not believe me is calling me a liar.
Those are the facts.

korban dallas wrote:and i will happily say a lot of scots where traitors to Scotland

Well done at leaset you recognise this.

lying1
[lahy-ing]

   Examples
   Word Origin

noun
1.
the telling of lies, or false statements; untruthfulness:
From boyhood, he has never been good at lying.
Synonyms: falsehood, falsity, mendacity, prevarication.
Antonyms: truth, veracity.
adjective
2.
telling or containing lies; deliberately untruthful; deceitful; false:
a lying report.
Synonyms: deceptive, misleading, mendacious, fallacious; sham, counterfeit.
Antonyms: true, candid, actual, correct, accurate, trustworthy.


believing

verb (used without object), believed, believing.
1.
to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so:
Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.
verb (used with object), believed, believing.
2.
to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.
3.
to have confidence in the assertions of (a person).
4.
to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation:
The fugitive is believed to be headed for the Mexican border.
5.
to suppose or assume; understand (usually followed by a noun clause):
I believe that he has left town.


use a bloody dictionary before you make stupid and false comparisons

Well done and thank you for posting which shows you basically were calling me a liar.

Nemesis wrote:

korban dallas wrote:and i will happily say a lot of scots where traitors to Scotland

Well done at leaset you recognise this.

yes unlike you i know the difference between traitor and rebel and can apply the term correctly

Nemesis wrote:Well done and thank you for posting which shows you basically were calling me a liar.

fuck!!. you even argue with a dictionary

korban dallas wrote:

Nemesis wrote:

Well done at leaset you recognise this.

yes unlike you i know the difference between traitor and rebel and can apply the term correctly

To the English he was a traitor.
Hence why he was given a traitors death, do you understand that?

Nemesis wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
yes unlike you i know the difference between traitor and rebel and can apply the term correctly

To the English he was a traitor.
Hence why he was given a traitors death, do you understand that?

No thats wrong and i have proved it you just fail to accept the difference that`s all on you

korban dallas wrote:

Nemesis wrote:

To the English he was a traitor.
Hence why he was given a traitors death, do you understand that?

No thats wrong and i have proved it you just fail to accept the difference that`s all on you  

So you are saying he was not tried for treason then?
I think you will find you are very wrong.
It matters not what you class him, what matters is how the English did.

Nemesis wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
No thats wrong and i have proved it you just fail to accept the difference that`s all on you  

So you are saying he was not tried for treason then?
I think you will find you are very wrong.
It matters not what you class him, what matters is how the English did.

and women where hung for witchcraft dosn`t make them witches  does it  
people have been falsely convicted of murder dosn`t make them murderers
like skywalker was in the rebel alliance does that make him a traitor

Bradley manning is an American who leaked American secrets ie arguably a traitor

julian assange is swiss i think is he a traitor and if so to who ?

Nemesis wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
Mock people with disability's ?? your bloody nuts dude i am the last person on this planet who would mock anybody with a disability and the fact you try to make that claim is disgusting. crap
and claiming i dont believe something is not an accusation your lying and you trying to twist it as such shows what a despicable person you are

I am not nuts, I stated she was disabled, not till after my comment you called me Forest as in Forest Gump and you are basically mocking a person with disabilities even though ficticious.
So its not crap, what you stated I found in very poior taste.i
Again claiming you do not believe me is calling me a liar.
Those are the facts.

the reference to forest gump had fuck all to do with disability's  it was to do with running away its a quote widely used from the movie  for running away as you did
" i said run forest run"
you then tried to twist it to mocking people with disability`s and dragged your sisters plight in to it  who i had know knowledge of
to try to paint me as a dick  your despicable that is fucking low by any standard

and once again you can`t read a dictionary or choose to deliberate fail to accept the difference in the terms


Those are the facts.

korban dallas wrote:

Nemesis wrote:

So you are saying he was not tried for treason then?
I think you will find you are very wrong.
It matters not what you class him, what matters is how the English did.

and women where hung for witchcraft dosn`t make them witches  does it  
people have been falsely convicted of murder dosn`t make them murderers
like skywalker was in the rebel alliance does that make him a traitor

Bradley manning is an American who leaked American secrets ie arguably a traitor

julian assange is swiss i think is he a traitor and if so to who ?

I see you cannot refute me again.

So I will ask again, was he tried for treason?

Yes or no?

korban dallas wrote:

Nemesis wrote:

I am not nuts, I stated she was disabled, not till after my comment you called me Forest as in Forest Gump and you are basically mocking a person with disabilities even though ficticious.
So its not crap, what you stated I found in very poior taste.i
Again claiming you do not believe me is calling me a liar.
Those are the facts.

the reference to forest gump had fuck all to do with disability's  it was to do with running away its a quote widely used from the movie  for running away as you did
" i said run forest run"
you then tried to twist it to mocking people with disability`s and dragged your sisters plight in to it  who i had know knowledge of
to try to paint me as a dick  your despicable that is fucking low by any standard

and once again you can`t read a dictionary or choose to deliberate fail to accept the difference in the terms


Those are the facts.

That has to be the lamest excuse I have ever heard even making reference to him running he had leg braces, which makes your excuse utterly pathetic.
The difference between you and I is I apologise when I say something out of order.
You make pathetic excuse for being a human being
You are a sad little twat and if I ever came face to face with you I would do an American history X to your head for insulting my sister.
I cannot stand pathetic twats behind a keyboard who would shit their pants faced with a confrontation.
If you want to go running to the Police be my guest, but you had your chance to apologise and all you did is give me bollocks.
Now you know where I stand you muggy little c u n t.

First of all, it's Forrest, not Forest.

Didn't he suddenly discover he could run very fast? I haven't seen it myself, so I don't know the details.

Nemesis wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
the reference to forest gump had fuck all to do with disability's  it was to do with running away its a quote widely used from the movie  for running away as you did
" i said run forest run"
you then tried to twist it to mocking people with disability`s and dragged your sisters plight in to it  who i had know knowledge of
to try to paint me as a dick  your despicable that is fucking low by any standard

and once again you can`t read a dictionary or choose to deliberate fail to accept the difference in the terms


Those are the facts.

That has to be the lamest excuse I have ever heard even making reference to him running he had leg braces, which makes your excuse utterly pathetic.
The difference between you and I is I apologise when I say something out of order.
You make pathetic excuse for being a human being
You are a sad little twat and if I ever came face to face with you I would do an American history X to your head for insulting my sister.
I cannot stand pathetic twats behind a keyboard who would shit their pants faced with a confrontation.
If you want to go running to the Police be my guest, but you had your chance to apologise and all you did is give me bollocks.
Now you know where I stand you muggy little c u n t.

so once again presented with the facts you resort to abuse and any time you want me to confront you prick let me know where you are and i will be more than happy to kick the living shit out of you
what i cant stand is pethetic little pricks who think they are better than anybody else and i have never run to the police in my life
your a liar and fucking scum using your dead sister to fight your battles and misrepresent what i said

and as for the apology i offered you my condolence about your sister and thats as much as your getting
now fuck of like i good little piece of scum you are i wipe shit like you of my shoe everyday