Them Brits

[Ed]

It was suggested by the guy who wrote"Notes from a Small Island" that the US and UK have enjoyed a pretty good relationship because Americans have never really come up with a good epithet for Brits. He suggests that the leading contender is "Limey bastard" which, as I am sure you will agree, is somewhat lacking in ... vituperativeness? Not sure what the right word is but that phrase will not lightly fall from any lips at a mass demonstration.

So, what might be a good form of vituperation directed against our cousins? Alternatively, how does one insult a Dane? Since I have been here I have racked my brain and the best that I can come up with is "damn Danes" or "monastery sacker". Neither of which really does it. Perhaps a Finn could weigh in. Do you have any other good terms of derision for other ethnic groups. For the sake of brevity, I suggest that we do not include Jews and Arabs in this discussion, they are just too easy.

[aerocontrols]

Well, nowadays we've got a good one just waiting to be used: EUnich.

But does the name really have to be bad to express the anger?

Yankee isn't much worse than Limey, is it?

[Troll]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Well, nowadays we've got a good one just waiting to be used: EUnich.

But does the name really have to be bad to express the anger?

Yankee isn't much worse than Limey, is it?

I think it's all the preceding adjectives moreso than the name itself that gives weight to names.

EUnich? Again, another post I'm going to have to use sometime and give credit to you for.:D

[Troll]

This is a tough one. I mean we've got the "fog" thing whether or not it's merely a legendary proportional thing or not, we've got variations of item identification ( fag=cigarette), simpsons refrerences to bad dental care, and love of the queen.

Fog dwelling, fag sucking, queen lovers with overbites?

Of course in american english that basically translates to a resident of Kentucky or San Francisco

[Michael Redman]

We like them because we don't have any good insults for them? :confused:

Effect, I would like to introduce you to Cause. . .

[Jon_in_london]

The thing is Ed, we Brits are so engrossed in our own self-falgellation that any tentative insults from your side of the pond wouldnt even show up on the scale.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Ed


He suggests that the leading contender is "Limey bastard" which, as I am sure you will agree, is somewhat lacking in ... vituperativeness?



I never felt the term "limey" to be particularly insulting referring as it does to the successful use of scientific methods to solve a long standing seafaring health problem.

Likewise I never thought the term "yank" was especially insulting. I thought northerners used it themselves in an approving sort of way. Surely even southerners would like to be associated with the winning side?

Where does the term "yank" originate from anyway? ( too lazy to find out on my own )

Generally speaking it is difficult to insult the British as in our own modest way we consider ourselves to be more adorable than kittens paws.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Nikk
Likewise I never thought the term "yank" was especially insulting. I thought northerners used it themselves in an approving sort of way. Surely even southerners would like to be associated with the winning side?

Where does the term "yank" originate from anyway? ( too lazy to find out on my own )

Generally speaking it is difficult to insult the British as in our own modest way we consider ourselves to be more adorable than kittens paws.

The Brits called their treasonous colonists "Yankee Doodle Dandies" during the revolutionary war.

Here ya go:

source (http://nurseryrhymes.allinfoabout.com/yankee_doodle.html)

Don't know how authoritative it is, but it matches what I've always heard.

[Captain_Snort]

Stupid yanks...

What do you mean by brits anyway?

The UK, or to give its full title as it says on my old passport 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' consists of 4 countries, england, Wales, Northern Ireland and best of all Scotland. Going further, you could argue the case or Cornwall as another state (If you like clotted cream and piskies and sheep). Yorkshire, likewise could be a separate country as it has a larger population than Scotland, and a bigger GNP than Wales. London, is so insular and up its own backside it should be cast adrift. Orkey, Shetland, what of them? Should we go back to the old minor kingships, such as Wessex, Logres, Surgales, Norgales, Northhumberland, Anglia, even Danelaw or what?

Take the term Britain, in my eyes, it refers to the British Isles, so using the term Brit or British, also refers to the Irish (Of which I currently am). Great Britain is the big island that has Wales, Scotland and england You could not come up with an all encompassing term for the melting pot that is here.

[Zep]

The usual one used here for Americans in the derogatory sense is "septics". Do I need to explain it?

The Brits have traditionally been "poms", or more recently "barmies". This should be obvious to most Brits here too.

I think one for the Danes should involve pickled herring...rollmops?

[epepke]

Originally posted by Ed
It was suggested by the guy who wrote"Notes from a Small Island" that the US and UK have enjoyed a pretty good relationship because Americans have never really come up with a good epithet for Brits. He suggests that the leading contender is "Limey bastard" which, as I am sure you will agree, is somewhat lacking in ... vituperativeness? Not sure what the right word is but that phrase will not lightly fall from any lips at a mass demonstration.

That sounds like Monty Python's "Bigot's Club" sketch where they were trying to find a derogatory name for the Belgians.

Runners up were "The Sprouts" and "The Phlegms," but the winner was "Dirty Stinking Belgian Bastards."

There's also a bit about the Bigot's Club in the Monty Python Paperbok. It says, I think, "America: Just like England only bigger."

[edited to add]

But seriously, folks. Or not. The British, as far as I can tell, invented sarcasm, and Americans inherited it and in some instances have exceeded the British standard. It's really hard to insult someone who understands sarcasm, but I'll try.

The British think bangers taste good.
Three words: National Health Care
Two words: Public Toilets
One word: Thatcher
They don't have many black people, but they do have the Pakis.
Beans, chips, and a couple of pints of beer make a nutritious lunch
They are paranoid about GM, but they don't mind when leftover beer is returned to the barrel.
Sheep brains are yummy.
The Welsh pretend not to know any English when English people are around.
The Scots keep all the best beef for themselves, but the English are stupid enough to think that the "Scotch Beef" they let out is really good.
Refrigerate eggs? Why?
Marmite is edible.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Captain_Snort
Take the term Britain, in my eyes, it refers to the British Isles, so using the term Brit or British, also refers to the Irish (Of which I currently am). Great Britain is the big island that has Wales, Scotland and england You could not come up with an all encompassing term for the melting pot that is here.

I must be a stupid Yank...

Why does 'Brit' not work as an all-encompassing term for 'people from Great Britain'?

MattJ

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Captain_Snort:
Take the term Britain, in my eyes, it refers to the British Isles, so using the term Brit or British, also refers to the Irish (Of which I currently am).

The greater part of Ireland has not been part of the British Isles for quite some time, and the inhabitants take exception to been called British.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


The Brits called their treasonous colonists "Yankee Doodle Dandies" during the revolutionary war.

Here ya go:

source (http://nurseryrhymes.allinfoabout.com/yankee_doodle.html)

Don't know how authoritative it is, but it matches what I've always heard.

Thanks. I did a little searching myself and found a claim that the tune dated back to 15th century Holland and that Cromwell was called a Yankee here (http://bensguide.gpo.gov/3-5/symbols/yankee.html) by his political opponents. The site agrees with you about the revolutionary war links of course.

So just as first world war British soldiers called themselves contemptibles because the Kaiser referred to them as "that contemptible little army" your guys called themselves Yankees because of a satirical song - amusing.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


I must be a stupid Yank...

Why does 'Brit' not work as an all-encompassing term for 'people from Great Britain'?

MattJ

It does work, Captain Snort notwithstanding. The term Brit or the Brits is in common use among english speakers to refer to citizens of the UK. It's not a perfectly accurate generalisation, but what generalisation is?

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


The greater part of Ireland has not been part of the British Isles for quite some time, and the inhabitants take exception to been called British.

Unless you've towed the whole place somewhere drier in the last few days you are still part of the British Isles surely. Britain and the British Isles are not synonomous you know. One could argue for cultural and linguistic reasons that you are more British than the English, but I must admit that this would lead to some confusion.

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by epepke
The British, as far as I can tell, invented sarcasm, and Americans inherited it and in some instances have exceeded the British standard.

??? One of the main complaints that Brits have about Yanks is that they don't understand sarcasm, let alone taking the p*ss which is what the Brits really excel at.

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by Nikk


So just as first world war British soldiers called themselves contemptibles because the Kaiser referred to them as "that contemptible little army" .

Old Contemtibles (http://www.firstworldwar.com/atoz/oldcontemptibles.htm)

[epepke]

Originally posted by Hypocolius
??? One of the main complaints that Brits have about Yanks is that they don't understand sarcasm, let alone taking the p*ss which is what the Brits really excel at.

Yeah, right.

[Dorian Gray]

Apparently the British don't appreciate the insults we already have, in the form of every American film or TV show ever made about a war or referring to a war involving the Brits.
- When Friends was in England. (Not to mention we stole the idea for Friends and made it better, but when we stole the original idea (Coupling) it bombed)
- When Brits were on M*A*S*H
- The Patriot
- Braveheart (apparently Mel Gibson hates the Brits)

To name a few. We won't settle for a mere 'stupid limey bastards', any more than we will accept 'bloody' as a swear word. We must make an entire movie that is essentially a three-hour insult to the British.

I have to say, though, once you utter the phrase "So I was smoking a fag the other day....", and most of our work is done.

We have 'fo shizzle, ma nizzle'. You have "I am going up the stones and chairs" stupid Cockney rhyming slang.

You want our respect? Screw Pop Idol. We want a Robert Smith/Morrisey Death Match.

Edited to add: A Fish Called Wanda

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
You have "I am going up the stones and chairs" stupid Cockney rhyming slang. [/B]

Apples and Pears, or just Apples. You do realise of course that no-one actually uses more than one or two phrases, other than to confuse Yanks. The only one I use is Butchers, (Butchers hook = look). My brother uses China (china plate = Mate), and I know several people who refer to suits as Whistles (Whistle and Flute).

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Nikk:
Unless you've towed the whole place somewhere drier in the last few days you are still part of the British Isles surely.

Unless you spent most of the 20th century under a rock then you'll know that most of the island of Ireland is a distinct and sovereign state from the UK, and as such isn't British. Of course there's no hard and set rule on this, but those of us who consider ourselves Irish wouldn't consider ourselves inhabitants of the "British Isles", and certainly not as being "Brits", which was the original point. A cursory glance over then history of Northern Ireland over the past while shows just how seriously some people take this distinction.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Captain_Snort
Stupid yanks...

What do you mean by brits anyway?

The UK, or to give its full title as it says on my old passport 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' consists of 4 countries, england, Wales, Northern Ireland and best of all Scotland. Going further, you could argue the case or Cornwall as another state (If you like clotted cream and piskies and sheep). Yorkshire, likewise could be a separate country as it has a larger population than Scotland, and a bigger GNP than Wales. London, is so insular and up its own backside it should be cast adrift. Orkey, Shetland, what of them? Should we go back to the old minor kingships, such as Wessex, Logres, Surgales, Norgales, Northhumberland, Anglia, even Danelaw or what?

Take the term Britain, in my eyes, it refers to the British Isles, so using the term Brit or British, also refers to the Irish (Of which I currently am). Great Britain is the big island that has Wales, Scotland and england You could not come up with an all encompassing term for the melting pot that is here.


This, Gentlemen, is why we have to come up with a better term. I humbly rest my case.:D

[Abdul Alhazred]

The British are our pals, so I won't try to come up with an insulting name for them.

I will say that no proper human being can stomach Marmite.

I have nothing against the Danes. That's Shemp's schtick.

I will say that no proper human being can stomach... what's the Danish national dish, again?
:p :p :rolleyes: :rub: :p :p

[Ed]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
The British are our pals, so I won't try to come up with an insulting name for them.

I will say that no proper human being can stomach Marmite.

I have nothing against the Danes. That's Shemp's schtick.

I will say that no proper human being can stomach... what's the Danish national dish, again?
:p :p :rolleyes: :rub: :p :p

Of course they are our pals. You don't intellectualize coming up for a name for someone who isn't a pal.

I mean, can you imagine sitting around coming up with a name for the French? No, you simply say it. For them developing the mot juste is far too much effort.

I thought of another, going back in their history: Regicide. That trips trillingly off the lips about as well as Limey Bastard.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Ed
I mean, can you imagine sitting around coming up with a name for the French?

I am far too polite to say anything about the French. :p

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


Unless you spent most of the 20th century under a rock then you'll know that most of the island of Ireland is a distinct and sovereign state from the UK, and as such isn't British. Of course there's no hard and set rule on this, but those of us who consider ourselves Irish wouldn't consider ourselves inhabitants of the "British Isles", and certainly not as being "Brits", which was the original point. A cursory glance over then history of Northern Ireland over the past while shows just how seriously some people take this distinction.


I never suggested that it was now normal to refer to the Irish as British or Brits and have never come across such a usage. Well not among the British anyway. It's quite normal to meet europeans who think Ireland and Scotland are part of England. In fact in my post I pointed out that Britain and the British Isles are not synonomous. I'm sorry if the polysyllable confused you so I'll try to make things simpler.

There is a difference between geography and politics. The British Isles is the name for a geographical area in which there are two sovereign states, just as there are numerous sovereign states in the area known as Europe. If one divides a European state as happened to Czechoslovakia it does not mean that one or both magically ceases to be in Europe. Thus the fact that that Ireland ceased to be part of Britain (politics) doesn't mean it ceases to be part of the British Isles (geography).

[Ed]

As a point of fact, I was not really including the Irish in my original post. They, being Irish, merit an entire thread on this general topic to themselves.:D

[Captain_Snort]

Originally posted by Ed
As a point of fact, I was not really including the Irish in my original post. They, being Irish, merit an entire thread on this general topic to themselves.:D

Bogtrotting Micks ? ;)

[Supercharts]

There was a time not very long ago when we called a moderate Irishman "Mr. President". :(

[Dorian Gray]

I will say that no proper human being can stomach... what's the Danish national dish, again? Actually, the Danish national dish is a smorgasbord.

Oh My God, I have it! The new name for the Brits is:
The Madonna Wannabes! Perfect.

[Some Friggin Guy]

Originally posted by Nikk

Where does the term "yank" originate from anyway? ( too lazy to find out on my own )



Let me see how well I remember fifth grade history...

I'm not even going to attempt to put a date on this, nor will I get all of the facts right, bu tI believe the general gist is correct. I'll see if I can get a source later.

When the English were spending a great deal of time trading wiht the Dutch (around the 15 century?) one of the major exports to Holland was cheese (quis in Dutch, I believe). There was a major problem with England's tariffs on good imported from Holland.

The Dutch had a rallying cry to get rid of the Brits who came in to try and do business. The Dutch called all Brits "Jan" (The Dutch derivative of "John", pronounced "Yon") When the trade issue became heated, they began referring to the British traders as Jan Quis, or "John Cheese". There rallying cry for the removal of the Brits was "Jan Quis go home", which eventually morphed into "Yankees go home".

Hence, where the term "Yank" comes from.

Someone may be able to probvide a better history of it. I'll start looking for an actual source.

[Some Friggin Guy]

Okay, I was close, but confused as to some of the details...

The origins of "Yankee" have been fiercely debated throughout the history of the Republic, and to this day the Oxford English Dictionary says the source of the word is "unascertained." Perhaps the most widely accepted explanation was advanced by H.L. Mencken, the well-known newsman-scholar (and don't tell me that isn't an unusual combination), who argued that Yankee derives from the expression Jan Kaas, literally "John Cheese." This supposedly was a derogatory nickname bestowed on the Dutch by the Germans and the Flemish in the 1600s. (Wisconsin cheeseheads can undoubtedly relate.)

From source. (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_260.html)

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted ny Nikk:
I never suggested that it was now normal to refer to the Irish as British or Brits and have never come across such a usage.

And if I implied that you did then I didn't mean it. Captian Snort implied that if you included Ireland as a constituent part of the British Isles then the Irish were as much "Brits" as any other nation in the UK.

It's quite normal to meet europeans who think Ireland and Scotland are part of England.

True, Americans too.

There is a difference between geography and politics.

Perhaps, but that's not to say the two cannot be interlinked.

The British Isles is the name for a geographical area in which there are two sovereign states, just as there are numerous sovereign states in the area known as Europe.

Yes, but the term "British Isles" has certain political connotations that terms like "Europe" or "Scandanavia" lack.

Thus the fact that that Ireland ceased to be part of Britain (politics) doesn't mean it ceases to be part of the British Isles (geography).

In the view of nearly everyone in this country it did. These Isles ceased to be under complete British sovreignty, so some of us think the geographical term "British Isles" should fall out of usage in recognition of this fact.

[Jim Lennox]

(Not to mention we stole the idea for Friends and made it better, but when we stole the original idea (Coupling) it bombed)

Seeing as we're talking history Friends (http://www.episodelist.com/shows/view_episode.php?episode_id=4017) predates Coupling (http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/coupling/episodes/s1ep1.shtml) by about six years. (Or is that what you're saying in the quote? - personally I'm astounded anyone overseas has even heard of 'Coupling'.)

But by far the most effective insult to any Brit would be to call them Welsh. Chances are they won't be Welsh (unless you're in Wales) and they will be offended.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Apparently the British don't appreciate the insults we already have, in the form of every American film or TV show ever made about a war or referring to a war involving the Brits.

- Braveheart (apparently Mel Gibson hates the Brits)

We must make an entire movie that is essentially a three-hour insult to the British.


I think you will find that very few people in Scotland (part of Britain) were insulted by Braveheart. (Apart from the fact that a 5 ft 3 in Aussie who couldn't have lifted, never mind swung, Wallace's sword was cast in that role).

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


I think you will find that very few people in Scotland (part of Britain) were insulted by Braveheart. (Apart from the fact that a 5 ft 3 in Aussie who couldn't have lifted, never mind swung, Wallace's sword was cast in that role).

In fact, William Wallace was NOT "Braveheart". That was actually Robert the Bruce (who the film slagged off as a traitor IIRC).

[LW]

Originally posted by Ed
Alternatively, how does one insult a
Dane?]

You could try calling him a Swede. And by the way, I think that you should ask this question from some Swede or a Norwegian, I think they are the experts on Dane-bashing.

Neither of which really does it. Perhaps a Finn could weigh in.

Well, we've mostly restricted our imagination to inventing insulting names for our Eastern neighbours (and we have a lot of them). We haven't had excessive trouble from the Danes after we kicked their colonies out in the 13th century apart from some raiding in the 15th-16th century. After that we simply used 'juutti' which combines nicely the name of the Jute tribe with 'juuttaat' that means 'the devils' (coming originally from the name of Judas Iskariot, Christian theology was never the strong point of medieval Finns.)

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


In fact, William Wallace was NOT "Braveheart". That was actually Robert the Bruce (who the film slagged off as a traitor IIRC).

Not sure what you mean by Robert Bruce rather than Wallace "being" Braveheart.

Bruce was portrayed as fighting with the English (or at least being with the English) at Falkirk. Nobody knows if he was there or not.

However what does appear to be historical fact is that Bruce was not a two dimensional "superhero" character with no flaws. It is likely that he did side with Edward at some point (which it could be argued makes him a traitor) before ultimately securing her independence. This is, very broadly, what is portrayed in the film, which is of course not a documentary but pure entertainment.

[Bluegill]

Originally posted by Troll


Fog dwelling, fag sucking, queen lovers with overbites?

Of course in american english that basically translates to a resident of Kentucky or San Francisco


Hey, watch it, you...keystone...um, ... dummy...

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


Not sure what you mean by Robert Bruce rather than Wallace "being" Braveheart.

Bruce was portrayed as fighting with the English (or at least being with the English) at Falkirk. Nobody knows if he was there or not.

However what does appear to be historical fact is that Bruce was not a two dimensional "superhero" character with no flaws. It is likely that he did side with Edward at some point (which it could be argued makes him a traitor) before ultimately securing her independence. This is, very broadly, what is portrayed in the film, which is of course not a documentary but pure entertainment.

Well, Braveheart was the label given to Robert. Like 'Hammer of the Scots' was given to Edward I. It wouldnt be correct to call his son by the same title now would it?

I dont know where or why you think that Robert Bruce sided with Edward at some point. Bruce claimed the throne for himself while Wallace wanted Baliol to be king. Edward also wanted Baliol to be King because Baliol was a fop and a potential puppet. So its more likely that Wallace sided with Longshanks than the Bruce.

I dont know if the film is supposed to be entertainment. A lot of people dont think its pro-Scottish nationalist anti-English propaganda. A lot more people unfortunately seem to think its entirely factual.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jim Lennox


Seeing as we're talking history Friends (http://www.episodelist.com/shows/view_episode.php?episode_id=4017) predates Coupling (http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/coupling/episodes/s1ep1.shtml) by about six years. (Or is that what you're saying in the quote? - personally I'm astounded anyone overseas has even heard of 'Coupling'.)



There was a vile version here on Fox that lasted a couple of episodes a few months ago. A Fox exec publicly characterized it thus "it sucked". Alarming candor.:D

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
I dont know if the film is supposed to be entertainment. A lot of people dont think its pro-Scottish nationalist anti-English propaganda. A lot more people unfortunately seem to think its entirely factual.

Hmm, I heard a joke over the weekend! :D

Q. Why do Scotsmen were kilts?

A. Sheep can hear zippers.

And there I was thinking it was the Welsh who went in for that sort of thing!

(Getting my retaliation in first before the conversation turns to pejorative terms for the Irish).

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Well, Braveheart was the label given to Robert. Like 'Hammer of the Scots' was given to Edward I. It wouldnt be correct to call his son by the same title now would it?

I dont know where or why you think that Robert Bruce sided with Edward at some point. Bruce claimed the throne for himself while Wallace wanted Baliol to be king. Edward also wanted Baliol to be King because Baliol was a fop and a potential puppet. So its more likely that Wallace sided with Longshanks than the Bruce.


Not a term I have heard used regularly for Robert Bruce.

As for sources supporting Bruce siding with the English:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/scottishhistory/independence/features_independence_bruce.shtml

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page122.asp

http://www.scottishhistory.com/articles/independence/independence.htm

http://www.highlanderweb.co.uk/wallace/bruce.htm

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


I think you will find that very few people in Scotland (part of Britain) were insulted by Braveheart. (Apart from the fact that a 5 ft 3 in Aussie who couldn't have lifted, never mind swung, Wallace's sword was cast in that role).

If anyone should be offended, it was the English, but of course, they didn't have to be. Wallace's pontification aside, Scotland remains British to this day. It's easy to be gracious when you've had the last laugh.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Ed
It was suggested by the guy who wrote"Notes from a Small Island" that the US and UK have enjoyed a pretty good relationship because Americans have never really come up with a good epithet for Brits. He suggests that the leading contender is "Limey bastard" which, as I am sure you will agree, is somewhat lacking in ... vituperativeness? Not sure what the right word is but that phrase will not lightly fall from any lips at a mass demonstration.

So, what might be a good form of vituperation directed against our cousins?Tea-sipping pansies?
Alternatively, how does one insult a Dane? Since I have been here I have racked my brain and the best that I can come up with is "damn Danes" or "monastery sacker". Serious stinkers. Come on, Ed, someone with your creative flair can do better. Something with herrings or mammoths, perhaps? :)
Neither of which really does it. Perhaps a Finn could weigh in. Perhapos you should PM pillory?
Do you have any other good terms of derision for other ethnic groups. For the sake of brevity, I suggest that we do not include Jews and Arabs in this discussion, they are just too easy. Can we do the Americans?

How about Jello-spined Hillbillies? McHumans?

So many possibilities....

[c0rbin]

To further Dorian Grey's observations:

In America, if you have the problem of having two white guys and one of them is the villain, give him an English accent.

[c0rbin]

For the Danes...

Bluetoothed Jut-****3rs

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Jocko


If anyone should be offended, it was the English, but of course, they didn't have to be. Wallace's pontification aside, Scotland remains British to this day. It's easy to be gracious when you've had the last laugh.

Thats a moot point. The Scots have their own law and their own parliament. England is not to have its own parliament but is to be split up into regions by that fat useless England-hating Prescott bullfrog.

Scottish MPs can vote for laws that only affect England while English MPs cannot vote in the Scottish parliament. A recent example of this was when Labour rammed through very unpopular legislation on English university fees, legislation that will have no impact on Scottish universities.

Scots can fly their flag over their official buildings, while the cross of St George is forbidden over English builings. England isnt even allowed to have its own national anthem.

Whos laughing now?

[mummymonkey]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Thats a moot point. The Scots have their own law and their own parliament. England is not to have its own parliament but is to be split up into regions by that fat useless England-hating Prescott bullfrog.
The two legal systems have always been seperate. It's not like your doing us a favour. I thought the regions were still a proposal? It's glandular.

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Scottish MPs can vote for laws that only affect England while English MPs cannot vote in the Scottish parliament. A recent example of this was when Labour rammed through very unpopular legislation on English university fees, legislation that will have no impact on Scottish universities.
A disgraceful state of affairs I agree. Some Scots MPs have taken to absenting themselves from the house and refuse to vote on purely English matters. I can only think it was allowed to continue because of the large number of Labour MPs in Scottish seats. This allows Labout to ram through very unpopular etc, etc.

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Scots can fly their flag over their official buildings, while the cross of St George is forbidden over English builings. England isnt even allowed to have its own national anthem.
Now you're just havering.

Hansard (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds01/text/11004w02.htm)

There is no official status to any of the (several, pretty dire) tunes used as a Scottish anthem.

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Whos laughing now?
Hoots!

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Thats a moot point. The Scots have their own law and their own parliament. England is not to have its own parliament but is to be split up into regions by that fat useless England-hating Prescott bullfrog.

Scottish MPs can vote for laws that only affect England while English MPs cannot vote in the Scottish parliament. A recent example of this was when Labour rammed through very unpopular legislation on English university fees, legislation that will have no impact on Scottish universities.

Scots can fly their flag over their official buildings, while the cross of St George is forbidden over English builings. England isnt even allowed to have its own national anthem.

Whos laughing now?

Well, I'm going strictly by the movie, but it was my impression that Wallace was going for a little more than the right to sing his own anthem. Ah well. I can empathize- oftentimes, Texas thinks it's its own country as well.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

Scottish MPs can vote for laws that only affect England while English MPs cannot vote in the Scottish parliament. A recent example of this was when Labour rammed through very unpopular legislation on English university fees, legislation that will have no impact on Scottish universities.



On the contrary, this has a massive effect on Scottish universities.

scottish parliament (http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/news/news-03/cent03-001.htm)

This is what happens when you have a halfway house. The solution is simple.

Incidentally, doesn't it suck to have an unrepresentative government making decisions that take no account of your interests?

Foot. Other. On. Shoe. The.

[Luke T.]

I may be showing my age, but "Redcoats" works for me.

[c0rbin]

Lobsterbacks

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by c0rbin
For the Danes...

Bluetoothed Jut-****3rs Tsk, tsk. That's a complement for at least half the population!

Seriously, you gotta work herrings or mammoths into it somehow.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I may be showing my age, but "Redcoats" works for me. How old are you, exactly, Luke? That isn't a slur by any strectch of the imagination.:)

[Soapy Sam]

The answer to the original question is very simple.

To insult a Scotsman, Irishman or Welshman, call him "English"

To insult an Englishman, call him "American".

ps I thought "Yank" was rhyming slang.

I'm outa here. Night-night!:D