Elizabeth Queen of Scots

[Peter Crowe]

Post deleted:

[Phil]

Phil. You do like to make assumptions about people's opinions/motivations based on things they don't actually state. I am currently aware that the BBC has an agenda on this issue, but because of its output online it is my primary source. I also read the Scots Independent online which has a different agenda and Gerry Hassan's blog. I used to read The (Glasgow) Herald when I lived in Scotland.

Please don't assume that my head zips up the back, I have a mind of my own and understand the concept of editorial bias.

I most certainly don't assume anything, although I do believe that the majority of the media are convinced that the Scottish public's heads do button up the back. I think the recent results do belie that assumption, however. Here is another site well worth a read now and again - http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

[Peter Crowe]

I most certainly don't assume anything, although I do believe that the majority of the media are convinced that the Scottish public's heads do button up the back. I think the recent results do belie that assumption, however. Here is another site well worth a read now and again - http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

Thanks Phil. I have just been listening to Kaye Adams (BBC Radio Scotland), and getting angry at the fatuousness of some of the comments and questions on the topic of the Referendum.

[Geoff Withnell]

While I'll freely admit that there is very little pre-17th century "European" architecture in North America I think most Americans (and Canadians) over-estimate the antiquity of British domestic architecture. Less than 20% of all houses in the UK date from before 1918. About 50% of all the houses in the UK have been built since 1960. In fact, 75% of the total number of houses in the UK were built after 1939. These percentages more-or-less correspond with the same housing demographic in the USA (and probably Canada, although I don't have hard numbers for our neighbors up North).

The big difference, of course, is architectural density. Compared to Canada or the USA the UK is a relatively small country, and everything is more tightly packed. Condensing many buildings into a relatively tight space does give the impression of "more", when in actual fact, the number of habitable/useful buildings constructed between 1800-1900 in North America exceeds the number of those buildings in the UK. Looking at the number of extant useful buildings constructed between 1700 and 1800, the UK would certainly have the advantage, Jamestown and Colonial Williamsburg not withstanding.

I read once (I disremember where) that the difference between the USA and the UK is that the United States believes 100 years to be a long time, and the United Kingdom believes 100 miles to be a long distance.

[Jock Scot]

I read once (I disremember where) that the difference between the USA and the UK is that the United States believes 100 years to be a long time, and the United Kingdom believes 100 miles to be a long distance.

Nice one Geoff!

[McFarkus]

Yeah, me, too. I remember seeing a baptismal font that pre-dated 1066 in chesterfield. I was thinking, "There's almost nothing extant in the U.S. that I am likely to see that is that old." I know, I know, there are ancient ruins and such around, so please don't lecture me about ancient civilations on the American continents , but that font was still being used!

HRH the Duke of Rothesay has shoes older that most of the houses around here!

It is said that in Britain 100 miles is a long distance and in the States, 100 years is a long time.