I see that the BBC are leading the cultural Jihad from the Celtic Whinge against Dr David Starkey following his acerbic (but accurate) comments on Question Time the other night. My respect for Starkey deepens!
THE JIHAD AGAINST STARKEY
Bookmark the permalink.
Grant:
I’m sure most of us English get on fine with real Scots we meet every day. It’s just the BBC-NuLabour variety that are hard to stomach…
Featured within R4 “Broadcasting House” this am, an update to R4’s potted history of Britain “This Sceptred Isle”, covering the next decade. It sounded very much like the history/future of the BBC’s choosing.My potted summary
Britain has shaken off the passion for national identity of the Thatcher years which result in no popular opposition to
Adopting the Euro
Abolishing the House of Lords
Disestablishing the CofE
We decide we don’t do certain wars any more, so no need for Trident or aircraft carriers
The special relationship is a myth
The 2 foreign affairs mentioned
1) Israel spoils the 2012 Olympics by bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities, the UK & US are the only nations to “regret” rather than “condemn”
2) UK refuses to join US in military action against Central Asian Republics.
PM Boris proposes smaller road signs to slow down traaffic (is Boris a stupid Tory?)
Red Lepond.
I suggest you buy a history book before you patronize people. When did the Scottish enlightenment take place?
The act of union was in 1707, and took place precisely because Scotland bankrupted itself in the Darian scheme (i.e. because Scotland was an economically insignificant country on the periphery of Europe with insufficient capital, or credit to send three ships to panama)
If I recollect the Scottish enlightenment took place after the act of union. To quote wiki
“In the period following the Act of Union 1707, Scotland’s place in the world was altered radically.”
It’s all too much | 26.04.09 – 3:59 pm |
That’s from the wiki page Red Lepond was using to support his statement. Somebody didn’t read all the way through.
Robert 2:33
Yes, I quite agree. Mind you, I find the supercilious, New Labour BBC English, like Jeremy Paxman, etc a bit hard to stomach.
I see you have all been taken in the that professional controversialist self publiciist and gaystar luvee Starkey after he makes a few intentionally over the top remarks.
More fool you.
I wonder where your support for Starkey was when he called the queen uneducated and uncultured philistine and compared her unfavourably to Goebbels.
Prince Harry he called part educated and out of control. Princess Diana a woman of uncontrolled folly.
BTW it was the daily mail that called him the rudest man in Britain, not the BBC.
On the ‘Moral Maze’ he was particularly rude, no denying it.
He lists himself in whos who of having the hobby of treading on toes.
He recommends casual sex with men on Hampstead Heath.
To quote another historian He takes the gossip columnists approach to history and is paid a vastly over the top sum.
Your being suckered in by a few intentionally chosen insults to the celtic peoples of these islands just about sums you up.
Anonymous | 26.04.09 – 7:04 pm |
I wonder where your support for Starkey was when he called the queen uneducated and uncultured philistine and compared her unfavourably to Goebbels.
Prince Harry he called part educated and out of control. Princess Diana a woman of uncontrolled folly.
I wonder where the BBC hit piece was when he said those things? Funny how he does a lengthy anti-Brown//Labour rant on Sunday, then makes a lightweight remark about the Scots on Thursday, and suddenly the BBC spends the time and money to send a Scottish Beeboid up to Burns’ house and spit on Starkey. Curious, no? Regardless of what anyone here supports or doesn’t.
Anonymous | 26.04.09 – 7:04 pm |
I couldn’t care less what he calls the Queen or Prince Harry – that is his opinion, just as he can have his opinion on anything he likes. He may be the “rudest man” in Britain (that must be someones opinion), he may frequest Hamstead Heath at night (it is not illegal now). But what he says is his opinion – he is an historian and as such his opinions are no less valid than anyone elses.
The problem is that the BBC choose to highlight his anti-Scottish sentance – WHY? There are people who agree with his opinion and probably a lot more who disagree – it is not news – it is a deliberate attempt to get some peoples backs up and associate anti-Scottish as being a “Tory trait”. Its known as “divide and rule” – its the tactic of the bully.
Anonymous:
as I said before, we don’t give a shit. He can say what he likes about the Queen, Prince Harry, Diana, sex on Hampstead heath etc. And he can say what he likes about the Scotch – we’re not bothered. Why are you?
(by the way, it’s you’re, not your)
Starkey’s comments were just a gentle p**s-take . The BBC’s attempts to portray it as a xenophobic tirade are just pathetic and , as Jon says , politically motivated . Labour are s**t-scared of losing their core vote up here (which was never a majority , anyway). The Beeb will do anything they can to help their masters’ cling on to power .
Gigits is right about Richard Holmes – he is the top T.V. historian . Has anyone read his “Sahib”? I would be interested to know if it matches up to the quality of “Tommy” and “Redcoats” .
I found it a bit disappointing actually. The canvas is too wide even for a Holmes. He doesnt focus as well on his subject as in his other work.
Just an opinion.
Cheers , piggy kosher . I will instead buy Hew Strachan’s “The First World War in Africa” this month .
I’ve had a look , again , at the Beeb’s coverage of this .
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8016440.stm
They have sought out comments from the Labour MP for Dumfries and Galloway , the man with the most marginal lead over the Conservatives in Scotland . I wonder what he has to gain from this coverage and the BBC from raising it ?
People moaning about Starkey being rude — but we all like it when Clarkson has a rant..
Thats because Clarkson has a face like a semi – rotted pumpkin. And it talks! Thats entertainment.
David P, Its all too much:
Wiki is the last refuge of a scoundrel..to paraphrase someone. 🙂
Dagomar.
Please feel free to go back to where you came from at your convenience. There are hundreds of thousands of English in Scotland and they are very welcome to stay and contribute in an independent Scotland.
Scotland has since the 1970s contributed more to the British exchequer through North Sea Oil than we have been given through the Barnett Formula. So please get your facts right. The big problem is the South East of England which sucks up all the funding from Scotland and the English regions.
Robert
BTW it’s Scots not Scotch. Scotch is a drink.
#Oh and that’s another huge tax subsidy we send to the British Exchequer.
DL:
never fails, old boy, never fails!
“British exchequer through North Sea Oil than we have been given through the Barnett Formula”
No mate it is UK oil not Scottish – Scotland is still part of the UK and has been for a long time – it is not a soverign state therefore the sea around these islands are recognised, as UK territorial waters ( or were until the UK gave it up to the EU). The same goes for England and Wales.
The Barnett formula more than componsates for the “money gained by the exchequer”
“North Sea Oil has not funded the Scottish spending gap, despite Scottish Nationalist claims to the contrary. In only five of the last 23 years have North Sea Oil receipts exceeded the cost of higher funding paid to Scotland.”
Click to access unequal_shares_the_barnett_formula.pdf
I only quotes wiki because Red had cited it – without reading it
It’s all too much | 27.04.09 – 9:15 pm |
I go that. I thought it was funny.
A.A. Gill in The Times about Starkey –
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article6155789.ece
I prefer Scharma. I prefer Rossiter too.
Got Hew Strachan’s “The First World War : Vol. 1 To Arms” .
Well worth reading piggy kosher .
Excellent spread of information – Africa , the Near East and the Pacific , as well as Europe .
Real history .
Wish I’d been a couple of years younger , so he could have taught poor ignorant me .
Cheers Alan. i will dig it out.
Robert,
I assume by “we’re” you think you are claiming to talk for all English people.
Untrue, not least because I am English myself.
I assume some of this tirade is due to Brown being Scottish, I don’t care which of the four nations that comprise this country he comes from he’s still crap. Why does it irk you so he’s Scots?
I never mentioned Scotch or Scots, I referred to all the Celtic nations.
This is a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland not England, so I don’t give a ratsass for your English nationalist fantasies.
(by the way never start a sentence with ‘And’)
Oh and for the record Gill had it about right.
If you like Starkey Hello! magazine history that’s up to you.
Give me Scharma or Holmes any day (I’ve met them and heard them lecture both several times and they are even better in person than on television), or even Ferguson or Hunt, hell even Oliver or Aston!