robbie + bannockburn 1314

robbie, i see you have a little nod to bannockburn on your profile. how those amazing men of scotland fought the tyranny england.


although it seems odd that a pacifist, who would rather die than raise a sword or gun to fight for freedom would be celebrating such an act. unless its some sort of protest to the actions of your fellow scots. do you feel they should have laid down their swords and accepted english rule as you would have done?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
robbie, i see you have a little nod to bannockburn on your profile. how those amazing men of scotland fought the tyranny england.


although it seems odd that a pacifist, who would rather die than raise a sword or gun to fight for freedom would be celebrating such an act. unless its some sort of protest to the actions of your fellow scots. do you feel they should have laid down their swords and accepted english rule as you would have done?

prior to this i had Delhi 1857, in which the Indian sepoys and the British army fought
and committed terrible atrocities, why, simply because i was reading a book on the
subject, William Dalrymples awarding winning book, The last Mogul , detailing the
tragedy of the last Mogul Bahadar Shah Zafar II who was exiled to Rangoon, by the
British after the siege. During the duration of the book i managed to remain
impartial and thoroughly regretted the action of the sepoys and more so the
reprisals of the British. As regarding Bannockburn, I also remain impartial as I do
all forms of conflict, the interest is merely historical and from a strategic point of
view. Should they have laid down their weapons and accepted English rule is not for
me to answer, they had their own will and their own values, as I have mine.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
prior to this i had Delhi 1857, in which the Indian sepoys and the British army fought
and committed terrible atrocities, why, simply because i was reading a book on the
subject, William Dalrymples awarding winning book, The last Mogul , detailing the
tragedy of the last Mogul Bahadar Shah Zafar II who was exiled to Rangoon, by the
British af ...[text shortened]... sh rule is not for
me to answer, they had their own will and their own values, as I have mine.

ahh i see. so you feel no pride when you read about scottish victories in battle?


will you be able to vote for scottish independence if there is a referendum? do you see scotland as a political entity?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
ahh i see. so you feel no pride when you read about scottish victories in battle?


will you be able to vote for scottish independence if there is a referendum? do you see scotland as a political entity?

no voting for me, old boss is the same as the new boss as far as i am concerned. Pride no, a certain sense of nostalgia for the past I think. I love old books, sad i know, but there you have it. I have a book of poetry dated 1891 which i was reading yesterday, it has a stamp of Wellington College and the signature of RGS Morgan-Smith on it.

The rhetoric of the Scottish government is we will have a voice in Europe, we are at the forefront of this and that, no we wont and no we aren't, its all nonsense.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no voting for me, old boss is the same as the new boss as far as i am concerned. Pride no, a certain sense of nostalgia for the past I think. I love old books, sad i know, but there you have it. I have a book of poetry dated 1891 which i was reading yesterday, it has a stamp of Wellington College and the signature of RGS Morgan-Smith on it.

The ...[text shortened]... urope, we are at the forefront of this and that, no we wont and no we aren't, its all nonsense.

i take it you have a love for scottish culture and are proud to be scottish, it must be difficult to separate culture from politics as the two are so tightly woven. our culture is reflected in our politics and vise-versa. even such thoughts about having or not having an nhs is both cultural and political. can you, in your mind favour a political party? or is just having a preference going against your beliefs.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i take it you have a love for scottish culture and are proud to be scottish, it must be difficult to separate culture from politics as the two are so tightly woven. our culture is reflected in our politics and vise-versa. even such thoughts about having or not having an nhs is both cultural and political. can you, in your mind favour a political party? or is just having a preference going against your beliefs.

No i am not proud to be Scottish, its simply a matter of having been born here. We are
a divided country, north and south, east and west, industrial and rural. I identify more
as a Glaswegian than a Scot to be honest, we have our own particular culture which is
distinct than from say Edinburgh, although its only fifty miles away. It has to do with
the Irish influx I think. Politics is for politicians, my main gripe is what qualifies them to
think that they are qualified to govern, it appears to me that anyone regardless of
qualifications can become a politician.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Politics is for politicians, my main gripe is what qualifies them to
think that they are qualified to govern, it appears to me that anyone regardless of qualifications can become a politician.

They "qualify" by successfully persuading the voters to choose them to represent them and to govern.

Originally posted by FMF
They "qualify" by successfully persuading the voters to choose them to represent them and to govern.

but that is not a qualification for determining their ability to govern, simply their ability to persuade.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
but that is not a qualification for determining their ability to govern, simply their ability to persuade.

Well it's up to the people to choose who they want to represent them. It is not perfect but it's better than those already in power deciding among themselves who should continue being in charge without any democratic deliberation or decision.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
but that is not a qualification for determining their ability to govern, simply their ability to persuade.

does god have qualifications in creating life forms? does he have any previous experience?

Originally posted by FMF
Well it's up to the people to choose who they want to represent them. It is not perfect but it's better than those already in power deciding among themselves who should continue being in charge without any democratic deliberation or decision.

no its not, its a nonsense, why don't you elect would be doctors or air pilots democratically, see
which one is able to persuade you as to the merits of his or her suitability? that's
correct, because unless they are qualified to act as doctors or fly aeroplanes they cannot practice and yet you
are prepared to let those governing entire nations govern without the slightest
qualifications for doing so other than they can persuade a majority of people, I don't
think so.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
does god have qualifications in creating life forms? does he have any previous experience?

what are you talking about, does God have qualifications? we see life don't we? in its
amazing complexity dont we? and a being infinite is surely experienced, yah think! and let us
take a look at the affairs of mankind and how they have governed themselves, shall we?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what are you talking about, does God have qualifications? we see life don't we? in its
amazing complexity dont we? and a being infinite is surely experienced, yah think! and let us
take a look at the affairs of mankind and how they have governed themselves, shall we?

well we have nothing to compare gods work to. we could be the equivalent of when a kid glues an egg carton to a serial box and paints it green rather than a henry moore. god could be in universe building remedial class.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no its not, its a nonsense, why don't you elect would be doctors or air pilots democratically, see
which one is able to persuade you as to the merits of his or her suitability? that's
correct, because unless they are qualified to act as doctors or fly aeroplanes they cannot practice and yet you
are prepared to let those governing entire nation ...[text shortened]... fications for doing so other than they can persuade a majority of people, I don't
think so.

Democratically electing our representatives is, as I said, not a perfect system of arranging for our governance, but it's the best one available. [There's a Winston Churchill quote in there somewhere.] The issue of whether people are "without the slightest qualifications" for governing is addressed by a democratic mechanism and a flow of information, and they can be removed from office etc. The actual implementation of governance is carried out by professional civil servants - a bit like your "doctors or air pilots" - who are thus accountable to those the citizenry hold democratically accountable. It has its flaws but it's better than any alternative.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Should they have laid down their weapons and accepted English rule is not for me to answer, they had their own will and their own values, as I have mine.

How is it that you cannot say what they should have done; surely as a sworn JW pacifist you cannot condon the fighting and killing?