HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: calum@ivy.clu.cf.ac.uk (Calum Gordon)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: Scotland Demands Democracy!
Date: 18 Dec 92 15:04:48 GMT
Reply-To: Calum Gordon <calum@clu.cf.ac.uk>
Organization: Computational Linguistics Unit, Univ of Wales College of Cardiff
Posting-Software: GNUS: NNTP-based News Reader for GNU Emacs

In article <1992Dec16.095239.24512@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:

>  "Disenfranchised" means "denied a vote". Scotland has not been
>  disenfranchised, in fact it has a rather generous entitlement
>  of MPs. The problem is that for the past 13 years, the whole of
>  the UK has elected a majority of Conservative MPs (hasn't cast
>  a majority of Conservative votes though), which have outweighed
>  the fact that Scotland has elected a majority of Labour MPs.

Doesn't that tell you something about our prehistoric "democracy" then?
At least 75 out of every 100 Scots want change to the status quo
(probably more as even some Tory voters support change but can't/won't
vote for the other parties). So if a large number of Scottish votes carry
NO political impact whatsoever then I guess it's almost as good as
being disenfranchised. The fact is that the Scottish four party system
just doesn't work with this electoral system - whether the Tories won
or lost two extra seats has no relevance as the results in terms of
seats are no more meaningful than the spin of a roulette wheel. What
counts is what THE PEOPLE want, and after the election and since then
the message has been loud and clear - we want CHANGE and we want it
NOW. It's all very well Major sitting on his arse and promising to
"take stock" when it's apparent to everybody he has NO intention of
changing anything, let alone granting devolution. I think it's true to
say that almost everybody in Scotland supports the idea of a
referendum, of some description, on the constitutional future, yet
Major refuses to consider the possibility. I think it's the Tories, in
this case, that don't have the mandate.

>  I don't recall Scots caring much about south-east England being
>  "disenfranchised" when it elected nearly all Conservative
>  MPs, but had a Labour government thanks to the large number of
>  Scottish Labour MPs. Neither do I hear much concern for the
>  non-Conservative voters of south-east England who don't even
>  have any MPs to speak for them in Parliament, due to the
>  Labour-Conservative pact which keeps the present undemocratic
>  electoral system, trading off an over-representation for Labour
>  in Scotland, Wales and northern England, for an
>  over-representation of the Conservatives in southern England.

Well when Scotland is independent you won't have to worry about that
then, will you? England can be as toryous as it pleases.
--
** Calum Gordon <calum@clu.cf.ac.uk>      ** TEL: +44-222-874000-x5310 **
** Computational Linguistics Unit (CLU)   ** FAX: +44-222-874293       **
** University of Wales College of Cardiff ** JAN: <calum@uk.ac.cf.clu> **
** ----- "People with (a) CLU use Suns; CLUless people use Macs" ----- **
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
From: walker@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Graham Walker, 227 West Old Main,268-3847,)
Subject: Re: Information Sources: Highland Clearances
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 19:21:25 GMT

From article <BzEpI3.GGI@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk>, by stevem@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Steve McGowan (RA)):
> In article <DROBB.92Dec17132812@hunter-01.cs.strath.ac.uk> drobb@cs.strath.ac.uk (David M Robb IE90) writes:
>>
>>I am also interested in American Indian clearances as well
>>and any ideas of sources of info about this - again facts and 
>>actual happenings, treaties, indian view etc rather than general
>>books about it - would be appreciated (should this part be to another
>>newsgroup? soc.culture.usa?).
> 
> 	Maybe not suitable for s.c.c, but still.......
> 
> 	One of the most interesting books I've read recently was 'Bury My Heart
> 	at Wounded Knee' by Dee Brown.
> 
> 	It attempts to give a historical view on how the whites ill-treated
> 	the American Indians. It describes all aspects in full detail, and also
> 	(which I think might be relevant to what you're after), describes how
> 	various geographic, civil and land treaties were breached and exploited
> 	to the benefit of the whites.
> 
> 	I'm sure the book also contains references and pointers to other
> 	related articles and work.
> 
> 	Regardless, it's a splendid book - even if you don't want to use it
> 	as a reference source. Any good book shop will stock it, but I think
> 	it's just gone up in price by a pound or so to 7.99. 
> 
wrt the highland clearances I would recommend

a) The Highland Clearances by John Prebble,

b) The History of the Highland Clearances by Alexander MacKenzie (old),
and

c) A good article from History Today from the autumn of 1990.


wrt Native American problems I would redommend

a) a book by Peter Matthiessen entitled something like "The trial of
Leonard Peltier". I cannot find the exact title at the moment but it
caused a significant contoversy with accusations of under the table
government cencorship being made. Matthiessen is still "hounded" by the
FBI. I think Peltier may be regarded as a political prisoner by Amnesty
International.

														GW
From: smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: British interference in U.S. elections
Date: 14 Dec 92 12:41:38 GMT
Reply-To: P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Organization: University of Bristol

In article <1992Dec10.144152.18453@news.clarkson.edu> walker@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Graham Walker, 227 West Old Main,268-3847,) writes:
>From article <1992Dec9.181543.24317@bristol.ac.uk>, by smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee):
>> Have to switch (apparent) sides here for the moment, because despite
>> the flaws in the US government, it is certainly true that the US
>> government is much more open than the British one.  (However, that
>> still leaves LOTS of room for improvement.)  Often, the only way to
>> find out what the UK government is up to is to ask the US, invoking the
>> Freedom of Information Act.  (Hey, and they TELL Brits who ask.  That's
>> not very friendly, is it, telling the people of the UK things that the
>> UK government doesn't want them to know?  Downright subversive, in fact.)
>
>On the contrary I also agree on this point (an other example being the
>what's it book about MI5 (or was it MI6) that was published in the US
>but not the UK - remember Thatcher almost had kittens about the book).
>However, all I was trying to say was that if any government wants to hid
>something from joe and mary public, it is not difficult no matter how
>much freedom of information exists.

Spycatcher, by Peter Wright.  Terrible book, and Mr Wright doesn't seem
like my sort of folk either.  However, interestingly, when the UK were
banning it (it's unbanned now) they only banned internal publishing and
sale.  Was totally legal to import single copies not for resale, and
since I was visiting the US at about that time, I bought a copy and
brought it back simply on the principle that if the government didn't
want me to read it, it was my moral duty to own a copy.

Far as hiding stuff goes, if what they're trying to hide is too
outrageous, it will probably leak -- and the leakers will probably get
away with it.  That's where Watergate and Irangate started.  Not
everyone in government is a nasty.  In this regard, though, the UK
recently tightened up the internal security laws -- the Official
Secrets Act.  Used to be that a leaker could try a court defense along
lines that 'yes, the information was marked secret, but it was in the
public interest that the information be released'.  This actually
worked a few times, and in the new OSA, the 'public interest' defense
is explicitly disallowed.

-- 
Paul Smee, Computing Service, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1UD, UK
 P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk - ..!uunet!uknet!bsmail!p.smee - Tel +44 272 303132
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic,soc.culture.british
From: crdunlea@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Christopher R. Dunlea)
Subject: Re: The story of the Scottish flag
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 16:30:27 EST

In article <1992Dec12.033652.688@fwi.uva.nl> hm@fwi.uva.nl (Hans Mulder) writes:
>In <JIM.92Dec11122231@hunter.cs.strath.ac.uk> jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid) writes:
>>As for Queen Elizabeth, she is known as Elizabeth the Second. This is
>>misleading as the nation she rules has not had a Queen Elizabeth
>>before. Some Scots find this offensive, since Scotland has never
>>had a Queen called Elizabeth until now, although England had one
>>during the 17th(?) century. 
>
>Lots of countries have queens known Elizabeth the Second:
>Antigua & Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada,
>England, Grenada, Guernsey, Jamaica, Jersey, Man, Mauritius, New Zealand,
>Papua New Guinea, Scotland, Solomon Islands, St. Kitts & Nevis,
>St. Lucia, St. Vincent & the Grenadines, Trinidad & Tobago, Tuvalu.
>
>How many of these have had queens called Elizabeth before?
>
Actually, considering when they were claimed by England, virtually
all these countries, with the exception of the far Eastern/Pacific
dominions, had an Elizabeth I, including Canada and everything in the
Western hemisphere...except Jamaica and Belize, I believe.

Chris the Smartass Imperial Historian
`
From: edch14@castle.ed.ac.uk (R V P Flood)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: New Taoiseach??
Date: 14 Dec 92 13:21:06 GMT
Distribution: soc
Organization: Edinburgh University

Anyone out there know the outcome of the nominations for Taoiseach yet
or the bargaining for the formation of the government?

Ta Rob...
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
From: ulick@bernini.helios.nd.edu (Ulick Stafford)
Subject: Re: Sovereignty...
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:59:21 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.191150.11480@philabs.philips.com> dml@philabs.philips.com (Damian M. Lyons) writes:
>before granting such rights; they certainly didn't ask the Nationalist
>opinion before creating NI. 

Well they did.  The treaty that was negotiated between Michael Collins et al.
and Lloyd George, the crafty Welshman et al.  The treaty was reluctently 
accepted by the Irish team because they thought the boundary commission might
actually do something, and at the time the British were winning the war of
Independence.  De Valera found the deal unacceptable, and hence you have the
start of Irish politics as we know it.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 
+ 'There was a  master come unto the earth, + Ulick Stafford, PP-ASEL       +
+    born in the holy land of Indiana,      + Dept of Chemical Engineering, +
+ in the mystical hills east of Fort Wayne'.+ Notre Dame, IN 46556          +
+      B'fhearr liom bheith ag eitilt.      +    ulick@bach.helios.nd.edu   +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: esh2@po.CWRU.Edu (Evelyn S. Hlabse)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Scots Wha Hae lyrics
Date: 13 Dec 1992 22:16:49 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: esh2@po.CWRU.Edu (Evelyn S. Hlabse)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu

Here are the lyrics by Robert Burns (who else)

Scots! wha hae wi' Wallace ble,
Scots! wham Bruce has aften led,
Welcome to your gory bed,
Or to victory!
Now's the day, and now's the hour;
See the front o' battle lour:
See approach proud Edward's power -
Chains and slavery!

Wha will be a traitor knave?
Wha can till a coward's grave?
Wha sae base as he a salve?
Let him turn and flee!
Wha for Scotland's king and law
Freedom's sword will strongly draw?
Freeman stand, or free man fa?
Let him on wi' me!

By oppression's wores and pains!
By your sons in servile chains!
We will drain our dearest veins,
But they shall be free!
Lay the proud usurpers low!
Tyrants fall in every foe!
Liberty's in every blow!
Let us do or die!

So may God ever defend the casue of 
truth and liberty, as He did that day?
Amen.

This was writtein in September, 1703 and is properly called
"Bruce's Address at Bannockburn"

This is not my idea of a national anthem.  It is gory and
sexist.

Anyone else got suggestions?
-- 

Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.usa
From: hiscrp@nuscc.nus.sg (C R Pennell)
Subject: Re: British interference in U.S. elections
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 23:02:31 GMT

cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Chris Cooke) writes:
: In article <1992Dec14.175350.1546@news.clarkson.edu> walker@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Graham Walker, 227 West Old Main,268-3847,) writes:
: 
:    Not being a lawyer I don't know the answer to this, but are lawyers
:    allowed to say to the jury "and by the way you can ignore what the old
:    fart with the wig says, and make your own jugdement based on moral
:    principles."
: 
: There was a case in England a few months ago where the two defendants in a
: Cold War spy trial were found innocent by a jury, despite having freely
: admitted that they were guilty!  The jury were protesting against the
: heavy-handed way that the men had been treated by various state agencies, I
: think.

	That's not unknown.  There was a case a month or two back when a
man was acquitted of murder (or was it manslaughter) because he shotgunned
the drunk who killed his daughter while driving under the influence. There
was absolutely no doubt that he was guilty as charged. Cue for learned
gents to make fees interpreting teh significance on Radio 4, 5 6 203 or
whatever it's called (the one on VHF)
	But you're right that it's mainly political things. The Ponting case
threw out the argument, put forward by the old fart in the wig, that the
interests of the state were co-terminous with those of the government of
the day. Then there were anarchist trials in the 70s.
	British juries can be pretty sceptical of blatently political
charges. It's when they are not apparently political (pub-bombings etc)
taht they believe the police. But if you were on a jury - would you be
more	likely to believe a cop, or  a secret cop?

Richard Pennell, History NUS
From: drobb@cs.strath.ac.uk (David M Robb IE90)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Information Sources: Highland Clearances
Date: 17 Dec 92 13:28:12 GMT
Distribution: soc
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dept., Strathclyde University, Glasgow, Scotland


I am looking for information sources on FACTS about highland clearances.

I am more interested in actual happenings rather than discussion
about it. Details of any organisations/groups which would be helpful
would be much appreciated or any really good books people have read.

I am also interested in American Indian clearances as well
and any ideas of sources of info about this - again facts and 
actual happenings, treaties, indian view etc rather than general
books about it - would be appreciated (should this part be to another
newsgroup? soc.culture.usa?).

Please post or mail replies direct.

Thanks to any who help,

David Robb
Xref: sparky soc.culture.celtic:8340 soc.culture.china:33268 soc.culture.croatia:176
From: mkakulav@essex.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mohan Kakulavarapu)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic,soc.culture.china,soc.culture.croatia
Subject: poor prisoner and prisoners a & b
Date: 21 Dec 92 05:59:29 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA


the prisoner can ask either A or B.....
which door leads to death cell/live cell.....
and the prisoner should take the OTHER cell (live cell/death cell)

the explanation is very understanding... and easy

for those who didn't understand, i will post it on the net next time as
i am busy right now
kishan
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic,soc.culture.british
From: walker@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Graham Walker, 227 West Old Main,268-3847,)
Subject: Re: The story of the Scottish flag
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:14:44 GMT

From article <1992Dec16.003608.29617@newstand.syr.edu>, by crdunlea@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Christopher R. Dunlea):
> In article <1992Dec14.161156.27972@news.clarkson.edu> walker@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Graham Walker, 227 West Old Main,268-3847,) writes:
>>From article <1gdrn0INNnu9@network.ucsd.edu>, by fledgist@weber.ucsd.edu (Fragano Ledgister):
>>> 
>>> It is rather hard to believe that the Stuarts ceased being kings of
>>> Scotland when they became Kings of England.
>>> 
>>But they were not kings of England, they were kings of the UK (United
>>Kingdom) when the Union of the Crowns Took place in 1603.
>>
>>														GW
>>
> 
> This is incorrect. The Union of the Crowns did not produce the United Kingdom
> in 1603. Rather, it was the Act of Union of 1707 that created Great Britain 
> and the United Kingdom. Until that time James, Charles, Charles II and 
> James II were King of England and King of Scotland. This I know
> from my research, and because my dissertation advisor blares at the 
> undergrads "You CANNOT speak to me about the British Empire in the              Seventeenth Century! It did not exist! Only the English Empire existed,
> because ONLY the English ruled it!" Point being, not only were the 
> parliaments entirely separate, as well as the State Churches (one 
> of the causes of the Bishops' War of 1640 was precisely because the
> English and Scottish states were not united) but the Crowns were
> joined only in fact, not by law.
> 
> Chris
>
Point take. However, in an attempt to keep my posting brief I have ended
up in a pile of "do-do", and so to return to the original reason for
this discussion. Is it agreed that Scotland has had a king called
Charles I and Charles II. All in agreement say Aye.

													GW

Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
From: rjwill6@pbsdts.sdcrc.pacbell.com (Rod Williams)
Subject: Irish President Meets with Gay Groups
Originator: rjwill6@pbsdts.sdcrc.pacbell.com
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, California
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 00:06:18 GMT


Liam Ferrie's "Irish Emigrant" reports:

     - President Robinson met a delegation representing homosexual
       groups at Aras an Uachtarain on Saturday.

Can any kind s.c.c reader provide a more extensive
report of the meeting?
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
rod williams -=- pacific bell -=- san ramon, ca -=- rjwill6@pacbell.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
From: cockburn@edieng.enet.dec.com (Craig Cockburn)
Subject: Re: Edinburgh Demo
Organization: Digital Equipment Co. Ltd., Reading, England
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:38:34 GMT


In article <CALUM.92Dec15154011@ivy.clu.cf.ac.uk>, calum@ivy.clu.cf.ac.uk (Calum Gordon) writes...
>How about some news about the Edinburgh Homerule demo last weekend,
>from those that were there. We don't get the scot.* groups here and
>the media coverage was woefull. According to more than one "quality" paper
>the question has been buried since the election, although on recent 
>trips north i've found this to be far from the case. Another example
>of the general ignorance and disinterest of the "other" nations in the
>union shown by the majority in southern britain. 
> 
 I'll be moving to Edinburgh in the New Year, that'll stir things up
 a bit !

	Craig

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Craig Cockburn, Digital Equipment Co. Ltd, Reading, England.     Suas
  Internet: cockburn@system.enet.dec.com                           leis
  Voice: +[44] 734 580597                                          a'
  Views here are mine,                                             Gha\idhlig!
     and are not necessarily those of Digital or any other organisation
Xref: sparky soc.culture.celtic:8279 soc.culture.british:17745 soc.culture.canada:9477 sci.lang:8468
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Thursday, 17 Dec 1992 22:39:56 MST
From: Dan Wilson <ATDYW@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.canada,sci.lang
Subject: Re: Gaelic-l press release

Craig... Thanks for the TEXT version of the GL announcement. Decoding the
PS version was a real headache!

Dan
From: gln@cs.arizona.edu (Gary L. Newell)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: This Favourite Lie Again
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:23:33 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson

In article <1992Dec11.035353.796@maths.tcd.ie>, tim@maths.tcd.ie (Timothy Murphy) writes:
> In fact the Irish Republic is a standard small European democracy,
> like Denmark and Holland.
> (Probably the most pleasant political model in the world today.)

"most pleasant political model in the world today"??? What the hell is
that supposed to mean? Please explain... exactly who is it pleasant for? 
Women? The unemployed? Non-Catholics? HOw pleasant do many individuals in these
groups find ol Ireland?

> Nobody cares what religion anyone is.

 Oh my God. Perhaps that is due to the 90+% Catholic population. I lived in 
a town where nobody cared about your race - of course everyone was either
French or Irish cathoolic or English Protestants - something tells me it may
have been an issue had there been a few minorities... also, my point was
that the Church has influence on the politics of Ireland in a way I don't
think you can find almost anywhere else in the world... seriously  - not in
South or Central America not in the rest of Europe - nowhere but Ireland
does the view of the church have so much influence and power. Of course
historically one can argue (and some have) that the church in effect sold
out the Irish people time and time again - I'm not saying I buy that argument
and in fact it may be quite wrong but I have seen it argued.

> The relations between the churches
> are just about as good as they could possibly be.

You seem to have missed my point completely. I am not arguing that 
individual religions are at each other's throats - I am arguing that like 
some throwback to the 1300's the Catholic church has undue influence over
the politics and future of Ireland and its people. An influence that I believe
to be unjustified and unwise...

> Northern Ireland is very rarely discussed.

 Something that you should be ashamed of not proud...

> The almost universal feeling is one of resignation,
> as at an incurable disease.
> Everything that can be said has been said,
> innumerable times.

 I suppose it is just this attitude that makes me wonder if Ireland will ever
again prosper - this sense of resignation is destructive in the long-run and
frankly I would put a share of the blame on the Catholic church and its
oppressive views, inherent discrimination,  and rigid nature...


		gln

Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic,soc.culture.british,uk.politics
From: walker@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Graham Walker, 227 West Old Main,268-3847,)
Subject: Land Reform
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:05:03 GMT

From article <1992Dec18.172120.4438@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>, by mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach):
> 
> Further from this, though, is the need to develop a political
> consciousness based on an understanding of inequality caused by
> the land situation. This is where Labour and the socialists are
> useless. Their analysis of capital discounts the land issue
> and overemphasises industrial capital. It is ironic that
> whereas the political trendy are prepared to call for land
> reform in the Third World, they cannot see the need for it
> under their own noses.
> 
> Matthew Huntbach

Do you class the anarchists as socialists? If so, I would disagree. If
you read "The Conquest of Bread" by Peter Kropotkin you will find that
equall emphais is placed on land and industrial reform. If fact most
anarchist movements have been found in "agrarian regions" (sp?) where
land reform is the principle issuse. Equally today, if you read The
Raven the anarchist quarterly (published by Freedom Press) you will find
many discussions about the redistribution of land within the UK.

													GW