Posts posted by Rourkes Drift
Well done to Shetland with a great result over this team. However, if you ask anyone from the Aberdeen area who has any knowledge of football, and they will tell you that Formartine Utd are pretty poor. I spoke to someone from that area who was frankly surprised that we couldn't get better teams up here than Formartin.
I am not taking anything away from Shetlands performance but merely hilighting that we should be getting much better teams up here to play them which would provide us with a sterner test. I would even go so far as to say that we should really be getting highland league teams up - at least some of the lower ones. Neil Bristow made basically that ponit the other week in the article in the Shetland Times.
Well what think ye of this conflict fellow Shetlinkers? Is Isreal a little man with a big stick, or a legitimately aggrieved victim of Hizballah?
According to another report on the same site "the war will not cease until Washington is sure that Iran has received a bloody nose"
Eh? Anybody got a handle on what is actually going on now? The more i read, the more confused i get.
Without wishing to 'state the obvious', the whole conflict in the MIddle East is similar to other conflicts throughout the world such as Northern Ireland insofar that it is deep rooted in history. The fire is added to day by day, and year by year. The current conflict is just another very large coal in the fire. The future results are frightening unless some strong diplomatic leadership is adopted now, with no more pussyfooting around vested interests.
Over the years, the Israeli aggression has been there clearly to see. Some would say that there is a lot of hypocracy there insofar as they as a people established there land there after WW2, and drove Palestinians out of there. Wasn't that what the Nazis did with Hitlers expansionist policy in the East. Certainly, like cannot be compared to like, but it is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black as they say. But, the war crimes of the Nazis undoubtedly pushed post-war Israeli governments into the seige mentality that has since existed. Lets not also forget that locations such as the West Bank are considered by the United Nations and most other nations to be under Israeli occupation. There are Israeli settlers there after all protected by Israeli armed forces. Such events as the 1948 Arab Isreali War, and the Six Day War in the 1960s were examples Israeli policies surely? Armistice lines were drawn up after the former conflict and didn't settle anything, so perhaps we would need to be very careul of the U.N creating neutral countries - although an excellent possible solution. Then, Britain being the 'great colonial empire' had out mits in about the whole situation also and didn't help - so we are equally to blame.
Clearly the US have sided with Israel more over the years, partly of course due to that large Jewish lobby in the United States. This is understandable. Only when the US as a super power treats both sides equally will there be any hope of a solution to the problem. But, since there is more of a deep rooted hatred towards the U.S. on the Palestinian side, this is going to be extremely difficult. President Bushes 'private' conversation with Tony Blair earlier on this week certainly did not help the situation in that it made it clear that he was blaming one side more than the other.
The solution to such problems is surely not to apportion blame to either side, but to accept that such a conflict is a 'human tradgedy', and to look for an extetior soluation. That was what was done in Northern Ireland. Both sides were brought to the negotiating table because they basically had no more cards to play. The same should be done here. As long as Hezbollah think that they have got the US against them as well as Israel, then they will continue to Hijack and commit terrorism. As long as Israel know that they can count on the U.S. support, they will continue with their present policy!! The Security Council of the U.N. needs to make some resolutions on this, otherwise a solution is going to be difficult to find in the immediate future. It is fair enough to say that everyone should sit around a table. That is definitely what everyone wants to see. But, just getting them to the table in the first place will be a struggle, and the only way of doing that is to make sure that
I don't think that we have anything to worry about with regard to a Shetland Party in this day and age.
People will be outward thinking enough to vote on national as well as local issues, and on that basis a part such as this is surely a non starter politically?
Shetland is doing not bad out of the present system, oil reserves and the initiatives of our people. On this basis, surely we don't need a Shetland Party at all??!
What about putting those last two paragraphs the other way around! Apologies
Lerwick is a horrible looking place. There's nothing much to see on the waterfront whatsoever... Getting fancy lights and stuff to light up some of the nicer looking buildings at night would be an improvement.
Jay Corrolla, if you were to compare Lerwick with Kirkwall, appart from the cathedral there, Lerwick is a much nicer looking town with a nicer harbrour front. (and thats not being biased!)[/url]
In no particular order......
Zulu (no surprises there!)
Saving Private Ryan
Dead Poets Society
Godfather (1 & 2)
The Man Who Would be King
River Ran Through It
Ok, those are fair points DB. However, I don't think that any of the Celtic support will fly much of the Scottish flag, and certainly none will fly the British flag. Surely the amount of tricolours flown at Celtic Park do no equal the amount of Irish men in the support? Why can't Scottish supporters fly their national flag? Or, could it be because all the other things that the tricolour reflects as being part of the Celtic tradition.
The same can of course be said of Rangers with the Union Jack. Likewise, very few Rangers fans will fly the Scottish flag. I wish that more Rangers supporters did fly the Scottish flag as opposed to the Union Jack because we are a Scottish club first and foremost. (then a British Club)
My point generally is therefore is that flags = identity = and sometimes can = bigotry (and in some cases) = sectarianism. But, if taken positively, then flags can be good, and the outpouring of national pride in Germany over the past weeks gives indication to this. Flags and national anthems are very important insofar as they give people something to identify. Around Shetland for example during the World Cup I have seen Portuguese, Argentinian, German AND England flags.
Sorry - I didn't make myself clear.
Celtic started flying the Irish Tricolour over Parkhead due to their Irish roots. Ok, nothing wrong with that. But, the big mistake Rangers made was to bring emphasis on the Union Jack, when we should have brought more emphasis on the St Andrews flag.
This way, the development of both clubs would have been difference since Rangers identity would have been more Scottish than British, and therefore Celtics would have probably been more Irish than Scottish. But, as things have turned out, Celtic have this 'Irish connection', and Rangers have this 'British connection'. Both fuel bigotry.
Correction: In my last post, I did of course mean St Andrews Flag when saying 'Union Flag'.
Apologies for any confusion.
There are some very well thought out and interesting points raised by Stan, I agree with much of what he says regarding Scottish anthemns. Also, there is much work to do in terms of looking at lyrics.
It is interesting to note though that if Glasgow Rangers . However, I say this as a fellow supporter: Had Rangers from the outset given a bit more equal prominance to the Scottish flag rather than the Union flag, then perhaps we would have been seen more as a Scottish club today, and Celtics allegiance to the Irish flag would have been shown up for the stupidity that it is.
As things stand however, we stuck ourselves overwhelmingly with the Union flag, and in turn pandered to the ills of bigotry and sectarianism. Don't get me wrong, I think it is right that Rangers fly the Union flag over their stadium and it annoys me when people say otherwise. Nevtheless, I think we should have constantly given equal weight to the Union flag.
Only now have Rangers as a club given more recognition to the Union flag by using it on the card display for European games, and also putting the saltre on their shirt. Perhaps we as a club have now seen sense since we can make the blue and white saltire our own, thus making the Celtic flag flying over Parkehead look all the more ridiculous in a secular, 'modern, forward looking' Scotland.
By the way I would suggest Highland Cathedral for Scottish anthemn.
Here are a few more to fuel the fire......
Midnight Dynamos (remember them!!)
Dave Ferrier (absolutely brilliant, even though he did school discos!)
And....the best one of all in terms of name B.G.D.
BRAWLY GOOD DISCO!!
New Magnie, I feel that people should not be afraid of religion generally, but feel free to challenge it within a liberal, democratic society (Iran excluded!!) If they have questions about it, ask them. I don't think that anyone says that the bible is black or white. For example, why is it some christians have different views upon drinking, sex before marriage and organ transplants. My point is that christians can't even agree, so there is nothing wrong with a person being a church/mosque/synagogue goer, (or whatever) but still openly challenging a lot of things that the bible or their religion says.
The point is to have faith is surealy a good thing - as long as it is not developed into extremism. I agree with your worries on religious extremism. But then, this is not isolated to religion. We have football hooliganism, educational minded extremists, political extremists. It is human nature to develop something perhaps, and then take it too far and become obsessed with it, and in turn often ruin it for others who enjoy it. I agree that there is much to be afraid of in religion, but there is also much we should welcome in terms of how we should treat and respect other human beings.
However, perhaps I am too much of an idealist!!!
I agree that many Christians (or religious fanatics generally) should practice more what they preach.
There is one important point here that non church goers often forget - and indeed church goers. Going to church does NOT suddenly make a person a better person, or a give them a right to judge others. Church goers and non church goers would do well to remember this. The former because it does NOT give them a right to judge others or be 'holier than thou'. The latter because they should not be afraid of going to church insofar as others should suddently judge them as 'going strange', or becoming a 'bible basher'.
Going to church is a matter of free will and normal activity in a democratic free society - just as it is going to the library, going to the gym or even going to the pub. On this basis, I don't think that people should be afraid of religion and challenge it head on. The church as definitely lost its way in todays society and has much work to do. But what makes it different are the people who go to it and can try and change it surely.
What do others think??
Hey, with all due respect Big Mouth....is quite a personal question and surely not an issue here. Lets just say that I am interested in the the church, or moreover religion generally. But, I would never preach anything to anyone else.
Very good point Turrifield. A lot of the foundations mankind have been laid down through various religions, but equally through some of the great philosophers such as Socrates, Plato and John Stuart Mill.
But, I don't think that you can every discount religion and say it means nothing in todays society, just as you cannot say that we should 100% rely on it.
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."
"The life of a high achiever is one of give-and-receive. We receive that which we are willing to first give out. Therefore, to grow and achieve we must first be willing to help others grow and achieve, and, in so doing, the light of reciprocal achievement will brightly shine upon us."
Scott McCulloch in his prime 1995-96
Bubblerock (North Star Days!)
Charlie Charlies Golden Oldies
I agree that religious belief if purely personal. Each to their own basically.
Religion has many bad points, but it also has many good - and many people would do well to also remember that.
Where is Pete Townsend? Still a living legend surely?
Who remembers Splicer??
Ok, there have been some very interesting, honest and sincere replies to the initial question.
How does everyone think that the church can give itself a role in society. For example, whenever there is a national disaster or moment of reflection, it seems that a lot of people do still turn to the church.
Therefore, surely we should not totally discard it in todays society. It still does have a role to play, but how can we recognise this role, and how can young people become enthusiastically involved or attend church - without being victimised as 'bible bashers'.?
I am no England supporter and I hope that they get put out as soon as possible so that we can all be promptly put our of our misery (due mainly to the media hype and not the actual football team as such)
Nevertheless, for Jack McConnell to publicly come out and say that he wouldn't be supporting England is downright silly and showed political naivety because:
a) there are far more important thing as First Minister that he should be talking about and
it is pandering to Scottish Nationalism.
People should be free to think what they want and JM should respect that by keeping his mouth shut on the issue.
What would have been wrong with Jack McConnell simply saying the following:
"I wish our neighbours England all the best in the forthcoming World Cup, and I hope on behalf of the Scotland that it is a successful World Cup"
But, the man has basically just put up a rod for his own back.
Some of the SNP are tolerable, but like the BNP they are lead by crack pots.
Lets be honest here, who can honestly tolerate Alex Salmond and Nicoloa Sturgeon? The former comes across as smug and smarmy whilst the latter is the kind of woman who really should be back behind the kitchen sink since that would keep her of the tv and keep her in her place(sorry women no sexism intended there since I am sure that she annoys lots of you new age women also!!!)
Politics is of course far more than about personalities. But, with these two at the head of it, I wouldn't trust the SNP to run nothing.
My big fear is this: if they keep picking away at the Labour/Lib pack, there is a chance that Scotland may find itself becoming independent by the back door.
Given the massive interest in Da Davinci Code, (which is a film about religion at the end of the day) why does no one go to church these days? (specifically young people)
Ok - here is an open ended question for a heading which might spark of a discussion.
Perhaps some of local clergy might also take an interest? It could provide some extra spark for their sermons.
Predictions for Scottish Domestic Scene 2006/7
Runners Up: Rangers
Runners Up: Hearts