amay4I’m getting the impression from the net tonight that Mrs May has proposed that Northern Irish citizens will continue to be British and Irish. It is, she says, their birthright.

OK, I can absolutely understand that…although they live in two different countries. Countries really different, the one from the other. One a modern, forward looking, small republic getting on with making its way as an integrated European country of the 21st Century. The other a faded world power with an antiquated system of government including royal princes and aristocrats, secret privy councils and special instruments, where old men walk backwards down steps whilst bowing to a superior being, and they launch massive aircraft carriers, but can’t afford any aircraft to put on them. Punching above their weight.


Or prats, as we call them.


Anyway, as I understand it, currently, a Northern Irelander is an NI subject of Her Majesty, a British subject of Her Majesty, a European citizen and a citizen of the Irish Republic.

And currently, as a Scot, I am a Scottish subject of Her Majesty, a British subject of Her Majesty and a European citizen.

Mrs May says she doesn’t want to take away the birthright of a Northern Irish subject, Irish citizenship, and thus a European citizenship, but I can go fiddle, because my birthright to be a European citizen, is worth nothing to her.

I wonder why Northern Irish subjects are being treated differently, and better than, Scots. (English and Welsh subjects voted for this so I feel less sympathy for them.) The word “troubles” wouldn’t have anything to do with it, would it?

Interestingly, I hear that English barrister, Jolyon Maugham, has tweeted asking if any of his followers are human rights lawyers, and asking “Is there a case here?”.

I look forward to hearing the outcome.

Sorry for the rant, but I’m actually really angry about this. Normally, to lose your citizenship, you have to do something horrific. I don’t think I’ve done anything wrong, so why am I being stripped of my citizenship and all the rights that it confers on me?




Apparently Big Ben will stop sounding for four years while maintenance work is done on the tower as part of the massive (and hugely expensive) renovation of their parliament at Westminster.

There are  two reasons for this:

There will be workmen in the tower, presumably trying to stop the whole horrible edifice sliding into the Thames, Lords, Commons and all;


The clock needs to be taken to pieces to be cleaned and repaired itself. Like the rest of Westminster, it’s run down and decaying… not to mention dirty.

Those are the reasons given by the keeper of the clock.

The Daily Mail has been HORRIFIED!!!!  Nay, MORTIFIED!!!!

The health and safety issue isn’t unreasonable. Y’know, these clocks that can be heard over a wide distance are ear-splittingly loud close-up.




But no show without Punch! Making an unwelcome return to the UK today (Wednesday), Theresa waded into the debate. (Why are they having a debate about it for heaven’s sake? It’s a bloody clock.) She wants it looked into, because…well because she probably wants to keep “Outraged, Tunbridge Wells”, a Daily Mail regular and Tory voter, from having a stroke or something.

And, after all, why would the average Daily Mail reader give a damn about workmen being deafened every 15 minutes. They are only working class, why do they even need ears?

Most likely May gets involved in these things because she’s more at home with trivia than with the hard facts of Brexit and Rail Fares, and hospitals and schools and all the other stuff that is so entirely dismal on her watch. (Remember the Easter Eggs?)

I mention this because it’s an amusing little pointer to what goes through the head of our dreadful prime minister, however, unlike the removal of my citizenship, I really don’t give a stuff if Big Ben slips quietly into the Thames and is never heard again.. and as for Outraged of Tunbridge Wells… Aye, well.


    1. I was amazed at the projected modernization of Big Ben. That digital clock and the electronic ad panels is going to take some getting used to.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. For Gawds sake don’t give them ideas, mind you, probably safe enough, those things you mentioned are modern, Brit Nats only do the past.

        Liked by 1 person

  1. What the Tories would like to do is designate NI as an EU protectorate.
    Should NI residents be allowed to retain EU citizenship,they will be subject to EU law enforced by the European courts.
    In the very short term,there will be no clash between EU and Tory law but at some point there will be divergence and who will then have the final say?
    The DUP will never agree to anything which differentiates NI from England so this is a non starter.
    The only solution to the NI “problem” is the Good Friday Agreement which is underpinned by common European rights on both sides of the border.
    There is no other solution,it has all been tested by better brains than the present Brexiteers.
    England’s Tories are entirely responsible for this mess,no one else.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. You wonder if they had even the vaguest notion of the sh*tstorm they were opening up when they embarked upon this seat saving exercise.

      The complexities are beyond belief and well beyond the tiny minds that are tackling them.

      I’d not leave the likes of Fox to make tea, and those close to Davis say that he’s thick and lazy to boot.

      Johnson is clever, but a fool, and May is just a fool.

      I really despair.

      But I’m very serious about wanting to retain my EU rights. I don’t see why it’s not a birthright. I’ve had it most of my life.

      Liked by 1 person

        1. Possibly, Sinclair. I base that on the fact that he studied Literae Humaniores at Oxford, while others of his class and background tended to go for politics and history degrees. I’m not putting politics or history degrees down, but by comparison to Classics, they are relatively easy to achieve.

          I’m sure that you are right that he isn’t anywhere near as clever as he thinks he is.

          Liked by 1 person

  2. The NI debacle isn’t going to end well, and this only confirms what we and the EU know that Westminster only survives inside its own bubble, with its own rules. In the real world it is useless, but it exists because we accept it.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. It’s the imposed loss of EU citizenship that anger me the most too. It rankles with me that a small majority in England and Wales can force brexit upon the rest of us. It is certainly not democratic.

    I hope someone out there is looking at legal challenge to the removal of EU citizenship for people in Scotland.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. Indeed Tris, which would be good if they can find a way to do it. However, as a Scot who does not wish to leave the EU and voted to remain as did a significant majority of the people of Scotland I would like to find a legal way to challenge my (and others) forcible removal from the EU and loss of citizenship. Given our desire as a country to remain is there no way we could challenge the UK legally through the EHCR? At the very least it would be another thorn in WM’s side.

        Liked by 3 people

        1. Well, the Scottish government has been making this case without any attention from London, but, they seem to be being listened to in Brussels.

          As very special arrangements have to be made for NI, and in a smaller way for Gibraltar, I think they will have to do something for Scotland.

          Liked by 2 people

        2. No-one has actually tested “the Sovereign Will of the Scottish people” (SWSP) in the Scottish courts or indeed in the so called Supreme Court. I would suggest that a case can be mounted that by triggering Article 50 WM has not given due regard to the SWSP and therefore has breached the Treaty of Union hence rendering it void. No need then for indy2.
          Try a crowdfunder with this as the main issue, but you need to find someone to take the case. Difficult as they may see it as putting their livelihood at risk.

          Liked by 1 person

  4. I’m quite baffled by May’s statement. Irish citizenship isn’t something that the UK can influence because it is a matter entirely for Ireland. If they want to give citizenship to residents of NI that is a matter of them. I’m really not sure what May is saying here, except that she is happy for Ireland to continue making its own political decisions and that the UK will continue recognising dual citizenship. Ireland has been independent for almost 100 years now. Someone should tell her.

    Theresa May is definitely not saying that EU rights and the courts that enforce them will apply in NI. That would be quite a bombshell and undermine the entire legal basis of Brexit. I think what happened is that some words simply appeared in her brain and, in the absence of any others that might be more meaningful or relevant, they forced her to move her mouth up and down to make a kind of noise through the expulsion of air. It’s a bit like normal speech but propelled by Brexit logic instead of normal brain processes.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. I don’t see how you can be an Irish citizen and not have the rights that pertain to Irish citizenship.

      But of course I see that that cannot possibly work. If I were to go to work in NI, I wouldn’t have the same rights as other British subjects living there, becasue they would have access to the Republic’s laws and I wouldn’t.

      I think it goes back to what we were saying earlier. She is well out of her depth and should really stick to Easter Eggs and Big Ben.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Irish citizens can’t depend on the EU for their rights if they live in the US or Vietnam. An Irish radiographer, for example, can’t complain to the ECJ that a New Jersey hospital failed to recognise their Irish qualifications. They also can’t complain to the EU about working hours or equipment testing standards. They can only take that kind of complaint to the ECJ when it involves another EU country. The exact same will be true for Irish citizens (and Irish/UK dual citizens) in any part of the UK after withdrawal from the EU.

        EU citizens’ rights are secondary rights. By that I mean that EU membership forces countries to apply a set of rights to their own citizens and to citizens of other EU nations. All of those rights are actually applied by individual countries from their own legislative framework. The EU just forces them to do it in an approximately equivalent way. The EU itself doesn’t actually have any direct power in this regard.

        After the UK exits the EU it will be a third nation. There will be no treaty agreement binding the UK to uphold the EU’s directives on the rights of the nationals of EU states. Irish citizens in the UK will only experience the rights that the UK decides to give to Irish nationals. That is up for grabs.

        So, I’d say that the right of NI-born UK citizens to take up Irish citizenship is a right bestowed upon them by the Irish government. Only Ireland can decide to change that. The rights of that citizenship only extend to countries that have EU citizenship rights enshrined in their domestic law. Quite soon that won’t be the UK. Theresa May is just babbling away to herself.

        I really must apologise for being an absolutely dreadful pedant. Cutting through Brexit statements is unbelievably complex. That complexity allows our political leaders to say pretty much what they want without proper scrutiny (parliament and MSM). And that’s why we’ve got this far.

        Liked by 3 people

        1. I would love to be able to get Them to commit Themselves to some simple principles, in rather the way the EU has done with its position papers. Of course, the meeja should be asking them these questions, but of course they’re not, so abnormal is the conduct of the Fourth Estate in this ‘ere so-called democracy.

          Simple questions that affect people directly, such as my EU citizenship. A commitment to no hard borders with Scotland. A commitment that all personal, civil, economic and political rights in the UK legislation currently in force will be maintained, and in the future will not be restricted but extended. And so on and forth. The complexity is at least in part deliberate bamboozlement and obfuscation by the Powers That Be, and – absent a written constitution – we need some basic, simple guarantees of our fundamental rights and freedoms. They (capital T) are the ones who are supposed to be dealing with the details. That’s what They pay people to do for them. The current lack of clarity, and the confusion, rather neatly cover up the fact that the Tories believe that rights and freedoms are far too good for us Little People and other members of the Lower Orders and Servant Class, and They would be better off if they could keep them for Themselves.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. We are grateful to you for your knowledge on these matters and the tenacity you show by analysing these dreary documents and statements.

          I speculate on what they say. You actually know combien d’oeufs font sept, if you get the drift.

          I read your latest blog late last night but decided to leave it till today, when I’m awake, to comment…

          So, in summary, May was talking through a hole in her head.

          Liked by 1 person

    2. Her statement seems to ignore the fact that if you have a criminal record and are not CURRENTLY a citizen of Eire then you will not be granted citizenship.

      They don’t break it down now but last time I saw figures (a decade ago) the percentage of the population in NI with criminal records was 12% higher than E&W (which has a figure 0f 25%) so that’s basically a third of the population of NI who will NOT be granted Eire citizenship.

      Joined up thinking? They’ve heard of it but don’t understand the words….

      Liked by 1 person

        1. Yes tris.

          A large section of (mainly catholic) society was “criminalised” by the RUC on a routine basis but in amongst the many who got fitted up for “assaulting” a “policeman” or similar there’s some seriously nasty people.

          The “loyalists” are much worse in terms of current active criminality IMHO – they weren’t the ones getting criminal records for trivia back in the day and were pretty much untouchable as long as they didn’t kill “civilians”. They were into drugs/prostitution/etc long long before the GF agreement as they were on the Brits side.

          The tl;dr is you’d need your head examining to let a significant part of NI’s population become Eire citizens.

          Liked by 1 person

  5. On the subject of qualification for Irish citizenship, I was rather under the impression that being born in Norniron or of Irish parents from whatever part of the island was sufficient, though those of us with a lesser claim would have to be sort of squeaky clean, but if you tell me it’s not so, Vesta, then I bow to your superior knowledge.

    On the subject of our European citizenship, and mine in particular, wot I never told no one I was willing to give up, I am happy to say that the moment I heard Guy Verhofstadt say that he would stick up for the rights of EU citizens everywhere, I sat down and bashed out a quick e-mail telling him that I am a Scot, and reminding him that I too am an EU citizen, and that neither I nor my country voted to have our EU citizenship stripped from us, and would he please stick up for my rights too. It was my understanding that at the time he meant in particular the rights of EU citizens in the UK without UK passports, against a backdrop of the threatening noises emanating from the disgusting, openly racist regime at Westminster, but also UK citizens in the EU, presumably.

    I am therefore going to hoover up all the credit that’s going for M. Verhofstadt’s statements in support of just that position vis-à-vis UK subjects (because we’re not citizens, we are subjects of Her Majesty) who want to remain EU citizens, and of us Scots in particular, because I thought of it first.

    This is my story, and I’m sticking to it. So there.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. In theory that may be true eddjasfreeman but in practice do you seriously think Eire wants the scum of NI? Ex-terrorists who now control the drugs market and who hate catholics? The nationalist side is no better – most of the ex-terrorists are now big-time criminals. None of them have any compunction about using murder as a daily tool.

      Not going to happen unless reunification occurs, in which case Scotland gets the “loyalist” scum who will no doubt leave NI en-masse. Eire has enough problems of its own with ex-terrorists turning into gangland bosses, they don’t need more.

      Pretty sure last time I looked at guidelines for getting an Eire passport the second question was “do you have a criminal record” & if so then you would need exceptional circumstances to qualify.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I just had a look at Wikipedia, source of all things (ahem) true and reliable on the internet, and found this: “The effect of the [twenty-seventh] amendment [to the Constitution of the Republic of Ireland, in 2004] was to prospectively restrict the constitutional right to citizenship by birth to those who are born on the island of Ireland to at least one parent who is (or is someone entitled to be) an Irish citizen. Those born on the island of Ireland before the coming into force of the amendment continue to have a constitutional right to citizenship.”

        The amendment was introduced to prevent what was described as an “abuse” of citizenship, whereby a Chinese woman living in Wales went to Northern Ireland, on the advice of her lawyer, to give birth, meaning that the child automatically became an Irish citizen and thus couldn’t be deported. That’s why the previously automatic right to Irish citizenship by virtue of being born in Northern Ireland was curtailed.

        I think that means that the Irish can no more refuse to issue you with a passport if you fulfil those conditions than the UK State can refuse to issue us Scots with one, however undesirable we may be: it’s an entitlement they cannot withdraw.

        Actually, something that puzzled me many years ago is now clear: some Russian émigrés I knew – I used to practice my Russian and vodka consumption skills with the husband in the relationship – had travel documents that allowed them to travel within the UK, with the exception of Northern Ireland. How that was to be enforced in a passport-free zone was never clear to me, but now I see the reason why: their child, if she had been born in Northern Ireland and not Scotland, could have become an Irish citizen and therefore undeportable. Not that that would bother the UK authorities now, of course. There was nothing said about going to the Republic itself, but then I’ve never thought that logic is a particularly strong point of the UK authorities.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. P.S. The condition of Big Ben and associated clockwork is a metaphor for the Palace of Westminster in general, and the institutions that sail in her. The fact is – they are clapped out, and a quick skoosh of WD40 isn’t going to be enough to fix any of it.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. I’m sure a small demolitions team could arrange that, but they might need a hijacked plane to act as cover.

        I am always massively surprised at the lack of Scottish “terrorist” actions down in London – I’d have thought *someone* would have lost their temper by now.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. It seems not to be the Scottish way, Illy. And for that I’m glad. Maybe the Irish get more than we do, but goodness me they have paid in blood and fear.

          From what I heard the whole edifice was in such a mess that, if it were just left without repairs for a few more years, the Thames is where it would be, with no input required from anyone.


        2. “On 28 November 1952, an official party assembled at the junction of Gilmerton Road and Walter Scott Avenue in Edinburgh’s newly-built Inch housing estate to formally unveil Scotland’s first ‘E II R’ pillar box…

          …on 12 February 1953 at around 10pm, the Inch was rocked by an explosion that could be heard a mile away. The three-month-old post box had been completely blown apart courtesy of a gelignite bomb. The next day a small Lion Rampant was discovered draped across its smouldered ruins. A brand new pillar box appeared soon after with no sign of E II R.”

          To be fair, it wasn’t in London.

          Liked by 2 people

  7. All too complicated for me but I seem to recall that before the independence referendum one of the weapons the No brigade used was the imposition of a ‘hard’ border between Scotland and the RUK with an adverse effect on Scottish imports/exports but with the proposed open border in Ireland that surely would no longer apply?

    Liked by 2 people

  8. tria and other malcontents whingers whiners chip on yer shoulders etc etc

    You have citizenship, citizenship of the United Kingdom Gods own
    blessed nation how lucky and glorious is that ???

    You do not have a Scottish citizenship as an Independent Scotland does
    not now and may never ever exist. So your manufactured outrage/slight
    is particulary galling to us true patriots…

    As for the Éire Northen Ireland conundrum turn Scotland into a sea
    of blood use the bomb and the bullet…and then you will achieve
    parity with those you now decry.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Niko, Pet.

      What’s wrong?

      I don;t think we do have citizenship. Are we not still “subjects” of Her Majesty.

      Now, I know that Her Majesty, as well as being Queen of various and sundry places, big and small all over the world, is also Queen of Scots, and to that purpose has a crown (rather a dingy affair compared with the English one but then we probably didn’t steal as many diamonds and rubies from other people as they did), so does that not make a loyal (or otherwise) subject of the Queen of Scots?)

      You make the point though, that if you want anything from the English Tories you have to be prepared to do a little more than talk to them respectfully.

      And you may get a billion quids thrown in, and an RAF flight!

      Oh, and I haven’t decried our Irish friends.

      I love Ireland.

      Give my love to Taz… OK?


      1. Don’t decry the Scottish crown jewels. Remember that most of the jewels in the toor of lunin were purchased after James took over the english throne and are therefore half Scottish.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Oh I wasn’t decrying them.

          I’ve no idea why these people need to have so much bling. I find it utterly repugnant, while there are people starving.

          Of course I’d not have any crowns at all. Democratically elected presidents don’t need that crap to give them power.


    2. Outrage not manufactured… I was 20 when the UK joined the EU, and it took a while for it all to fall into place, but I made use of my EU citizenship that meant I could live and work anywhere within the EU that I chose. So I did. France, Austria, Spain, the Netherlands, Germany – lived in’em all.

      I first went to Poland when I was 17 – I took a train – and had to get through the old East Germany, and Berlin, then the Polish border, with protracted passport and customs stops at each place. The East German Grenzpolizei were pretty fearsome, I recall.

      I remember the hell which, years later, the Home Office put our family through when my father wanted to remarry, this time to my Polish stepmother… now, of course, there is no problem, people in that situation can get married and live where they choose, unless the UK Home Office start playing silly buggers with you again.

      I remember driving up to visit my father and step-family in Poland on several occasions from where I lived in Vienna, which involved going into the old Czechoslovakia, out of the old Czechoslovakia (controls at both), into Poland (ditto), fuel coupons, minimum foreign exchange requirements, visas – then repeat in reverse. Now, of course, I could drive from Vienna to Poland with no border controls at all, and from Warsaw to Dundee with no border controls at all, except on entering England…

      I loved the freedom, to just move around and settle without any of the famous “let or hindrance” mentioned at the front of UK passports.

      Stripping a person of citizenship is a very serious matter. Overriding a country’s democratic vote is too. I have to object to, and resist, both, because not to would be a betrayal of everything I believe in. I don’t want my compatriots to lose their freedoms either, because I care about them too, whether you call that “patriotism” or not. So no, my outrage is not manufactured, Niko.

      Liked by 2 people

        1. Yes, “let” is peculiar, isn’t it – it’s an old meaning, pretty much not found anywhere except in the phrase “without let or hindrance” and means pretty much the opposite of let = allow, and is a synonym of “hindrance”. There are a few other words like that – “sanction” is the one that most readily comes to mind, encompassing both one concept and its antonym.

          My unrivalled googling skills have revealed that “lets” are also to be found in the game of tennis, which is, as we know, a treasure-trove of bizarre expressions. Love-forty! Deuce! Game, set, and match! New balls, please!

          Liked by 1 person

    3. Honestly, I thought that Niko was pulling a Trump. Just decide what he wants the answer to be and then lie about it if it’s not the actual fact. I thought that people in a Monarchy were subjects, and that was the end of it.

      But then I found the Wikipedia article titled “British Subject.”


      Sounds like since 1983, you all are citizens of the UK. Here’s what it says:

      “On 1 January 1983, upon the coming into force of the British Nationality Act 1981, every citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies became either a British citizen, British Dependent Territories citizen or British Overseas citizen.”

      So congratulations! You poor people who labor under the yoke of Monarchical tyranny aren’t called “subjects” anymore. (At least that’s the way I read it quickly.)

      Liked by 1 person

        1. Tris…..That British Nationality Act thingy may not be all that well known. I saw a BBC article that suggested that people in the UK might be considered BOTH citizens and subjects. The idea being that citizens of a Monarchy are always subjects of the Monarch, regardless of other matters of law. Seems like you can maybe take your pick…..LOL.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. “Citizen” v. “subject”: if you subscribe to the peculiar English / Britnat concept of Parliament as sovereign, and the sovereignty of the UK being embodied by the Queen in Parliament, then you’re a subject. If you subscribe to the Scottish notion of popular sovereignty, i.e., that sovereignty rests with the people, then you’re truly a citizen, because you share in that sovereignty, whereas that other notion of it reserves it for the monarch and the Parliament. Which is a completely bonkers idea, really, as I’m sure most English folk would agree as well.

            Our idea of sovereignty is, of course, a new-fangled one, as it has only been around since, oh, the 17th century, possibly a bit earlier in Spain, if I remember my history of ideas (no guarantees there!)

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Yes, Ed, I thought there was a difference between Scotland and England on this.

              Munguin says that we are citizens, but I am also a serf… his!


          2. Actually, it’s even more complex than that, because in Scotland the monarch is the monarch at the will of the people, as opposed to in England, by the grace of god.

            Not sure where it leaves us… Anyway, I want no part of it.


    4. Niko…..writes: “tria and other malcontents whingers whiners chip on yer shoulders etc etc”

      For a long time, I thought that “whinge” and “whingers” were the British spellings of the American English “whine” and “whiners.” Now it looks like they are words which are BOTH in use in English English.

      Is this true? If so, how are they pronounced, and what is the difference in their meanings?


      1. I reckon they mean the same thing, Danny.

        Pronounced like “hinge” with the “wh” sound of “when” at the beginning.

        Niko is a perfect example of them…


        1. True enough, but although dogs can whine, mosquitos can whine, and machinery can whine, only humans can whinge. As for that haspirated wubbleyou, it’s not to be found in many dialects of English: as those of us hwat use it – including we speakers of standard Scottish English – can say, “Don’t hwine about the wine”, “It’s enough to make a hwale wail”, hwitch are examples of our using it to make the so-called minimal difference conveying separate meanings, just as in “Hwitch witch?”

          It’s all of a piece with that loss of initial aitches / haitches that is such a common phenomenon in language: from Lunnon’s “‘Ere, oo’re you” and “Wotcha / wotcher”, to Catullus mocking a nouveau riche social climber called Arrius who betrayed is horigins by doing that ypercorrection thing (himagining it was posh hand Greek) hand putting is haitches ware they didn’t hotter be: “‘Hadvantages’ Arrius was saying whenever he wished to say advantages / And ambush he was saying ‘hambush’, …” – I would have translated it a bit differently, but the point would be the same. That’s hat en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Catullus_84. [Usual caveat about broad-brush, oversimplistic approach.]

          I always used to enjoy being wished “Appy olidays”wen I lived down south. Two of my favouritest words, those.

          Liked by 1 person

            1. So as I understand it, in British English “whine” (rhymes with wine) is a distinctive high pitched sound, whereas “whinge” (rhymes with the hinge of a door) originally meant a wailing or crying but came to mean simply complaining about something.

              I have NEVER seen or heard “whinge” used in American English. The word “whine” means ALL of the above in America.

              The article below says: “The British sometimes use the terms together for emphasis: ‘Stop your whingeing and whining!'” That seems to be the way Niko used the two words.


              Liked by 1 person

              1. “Peevish and fretful complaining” is dead on for whingeing. When humans whine, it means pointless, childish and annoying complaining.

                Related to that, here’s your Scots word for today, Danny, though I expect you’ve come across it already: to girn. Here’s the relevant entry in the Dictionary of the Scots Language (dsl.ac.uk): “… To complain peevishly, to grumble, to express discontent; of children: to be fretful, to whine, whimper; to groan, to cry. Often followed by at or aboot (about).”

                And here’s your free bonus Scots word for today: to greet. Again from DSL: “… To weep, cry, whimper, lament; to complain, grumble in a helpless trifling manner. … vbl.n. greetin, weeping, whimpering.”

                We can say in Scots that cheese is greetin, which means that it’s been sitting out too long and is sweating oily stuff, and looking unhappy as a result.

                Liked by 1 person

            2. It is a sign of a misspent youth: far too much swotting and nerdery, far too little sex, drugs and rock’n’roll – well, actually, let’s leave the drugs out of it, my brain chemistry is quite weird enough already with no assistance whatsoever. Anyway, far too many sins of omission, not nearly enough of commission. Sort of thing.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. I’m sure I’m missing some of the finer points of differentiation, but between girn, greetin, whinge, and whine, it seems to me that you have the general idea of peevish and fretful complaining (maybe with the attendant sounds,) VERY well covered. Only “whine” is encountered in American English. I first encountered whinge on British and Scottish websites, and girn and greetin in Scots is entirely new.
                Wonderful new vocabulary! 🙂

                Liked by 2 people

                  1. Edd…….No one better try to tell me such a thing! 😉

                    Edd, Tris…….It occurs to me that while a Brit or a Scot might say “oh stop your whingeing and whining,” an American (at least one in the Midwest) would commonly say “oh stop your moaning and groaning,” or much less politely, “stop your bitching and moaning.”

                    As for “greetin,” in America that would of course be “Hi, good to see ya”….with “G-dropping” on “greeting.” An English-born presenter/commentator on our slightly upper crust PBS television network once pointed out that G-dropping was once very popular among the British upper classes. Maybe not among royalty, but among the aristocrats in country houses who go fox hunting. The subject came up during a showing of the BBC series of Lord Peter Wimsey detective stories. Lord Peter dropped his G’s all over the place.

                    Liked by 1 person

                1. Well… maybe we have a lot of words for whine, because we spend our lives doing it… mainly about the weather, but also Westminster and the Tories…


                    1. Yes, monophthongization is one of the reasons why our spelling is so bonkers in places – the sounds some vowel combinations represent have changed over time, with some things that were originally the same becoming different, and things that were different becoming the same. Of course, one can hardly be thorough enough to go through all the possible combinations, but we can start with the phrase “some women can’t bear bearded bards, and others find wearing furs warming but wearisome”.

                      Diphthongs become monophthongs by monophthongization, monophthongs become diphthongs through diphthongization. Compare pronunciations of root, rout, route and router in BritEng and AmEng, and about / aboot, doon / down in BritEng, ScotEng and Scots…

                      Liked by 1 person

                    2. Very interesting Edd…..and much better explained than Wikipedia managed.

                      This brings to mind something a grade school teacher (maybe second grade of elementary school) once taught us that I always remembered. She said that the vowels are A,E,I,O,U and SOMETIMES W and Y.

                      The Y as a vowel in English is simple enough, but decades later I went on a quest for a word that uses a W as a vowel. I finally found (now forgotten) a couple of obscure W-vowel English words that came from the Welsh I think, but I knew that those weird words CAN’T have been what my second grade teacher had in mind for a W vowel.

                      Then I thought of diphthongs where W is joined with one of the AEIOU letters. THAT must be what she had in mind for a W vowel. I may be wrong about that, but that explanation is so far the only one that works for me in explaining the “sometimes” W vowel. 😉

                      Liked by 2 people

                    3. Well – we have to be careful not to confuse the spelling with the speech… just trying to think of a sample sentence… (puts on English as a Foreign Language teaching hat). “Such a sow she was, and how boisterously she would yell “Soy sauce!” and pout when eating boysenberry jam. Aieee! Awful.”

                      “Semivowel” is a word you may come across, but never mind that: I am rather fond of languages that use /r/ as a vowel. For example, in Serbian / Croatian, the “First Church of Serbia” would be Prva Crkva Srbije. The j is a y, you see, and the c is a ts, if that helps any. “Krk”, however, does not mean “kirk”, it’s the name of an island off the Dalmatian coast.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    4. Edd…..I had never considered R as a vowel. Very interesting!

                      So I went and found those two words from Welsh I mentioned that use W as a vowel……a single vowel and not part of a diphthong . Found them on Dictionary dot com. They are “cwm”, a steep-walled semicircular basin in a mountain, and “crwth”, an ancient Celtic musical instrument. With the vowel W in both cases sounding like the “oo” in “boom.” The article also says that l,m,n, and r can be vowels…..at the end of words in the examples they give.

                      Then a comment takes issue with “w” as the second letter of a diphthong (which seemed OK with me.) And YES…….insisted that at most it’s a semivowel.

                      Then a comment takes issue with l,m,n, and r as vowels in the examples given and insists that vowels are being confused with syllabic consonants.

                      VERY CONFUSING! I’m glad my field is science and engineering. That’s much simpler. 😉


                      Liked by 2 people

  9. Back to Big Ben.
    Why don’t we give Jacob Rees-Mogg a couple of paddles and bolt him to the clock face. He can then, in a patriotic fashion indicate the time while shouting the requisite number of bongs on the hour.

    Londoners wishing to set there clocks accurately can have an app that takes leap years, days etc into account and makes the necessary adjustment because he’ll be telling the time from the year 1920.

    The wee arse.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Tris said: “I wonder why Northern Irish subjects are being treated differently, and better than, Scots. (English and Welsh subjects voted for this so I feel less sympathy for them.) The word “troubles” wouldn’t have anything to do with it, would it?”

    I did a quick read-through of these comments and thought I saw a reference to a constitution of the Republic of Ireland. Now I can’t find such a reference again, and everyone here probably already knows all this. Anyway, as I understand it, the issue involves the 1937 Irish Constitution, as amended in 1999.

    How people who were EVER part of the UK realized that it is essential for national sovereignty that all legal authority must flow from a written constitution……and NOT from a sovereign parliament that makes it up as it goes along…….is beyond me. But it seems that the citizens of the Republic of Ireland DID get the correct constitutional idea.

    The current Constitution of the Republic of Ireland took effect on 29 December, 1937:


    From Wikipedia: “As originally enacted in 1937, Article 2 asserted that “the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas” formed a single “national territory”, while Article 3 asserted that the Oireachtas had a right “to exercise jurisdiction over the whole of that territory”. These articles offended Unionists in Northern Ireland, who considered them tantamount to an illegal extraterritorial claim.”

    “Under the terms of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, Articles 2 and 3 were amended to remove any reference to a “national territory”, and to state that a united Ireland should only come about with the consent of majorities in both the jurisdictions on the island of Ireland. The amended Articles also guarantee the people of Northern Ireland the right to be a “part of the Irish Nation”, and to Irish citizenship.”

    So subsequent to the Good Friday Agreement of 1998, the controversial Articles 2 and 3 of the 1937 Irish constitution were revised by the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution which took effect on 2 December, 1999.


    From Wikipedia’s description:

    “As amended they grant the right to be “part of the Irish Nation” to all of those born on the island of Ireland and express a desire for the peaceful political unification of the island subject to the consent of the peoples of Northern Ireland and Ireland. Before 1999, Articles 2 and 3 made the claim that the whole island formed one “national territory”.”

    This information seems to address the issue as I understand it. And I do LOVE the idea that former Irish subjects of the UK Monarchy figured out that parliamentary sovereignty is for the birds as a system of governance, and that free people in a sovereign state NEED a constitution that they sit down and actually WRITE. In this case, it seems to have resolved the thorny issue of the citizenship of the people of Northern Ireland in a very reasonable (constitutional) manner.

    Just sayin…….LOL.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. PS: As described in the Wikipedia description on Articles 2 and 3 just above, further details on Irish citizenship are specified in Article 9 of the 1937 Constitution as amended in 2004. Article 2 as amended in 1999 still applies to the subject too of course. Retaining a constitutional lawyer to assist in sorting the wording is strongly advised, but Wiki’s discussion of the citizenship subject IS an interesting read. 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Thanks for that info, Danny.

      I know it’s one of your pet subjects, but I agree completely with you that we need to have a written constitution that cannot be made up on the whim of a royal or prime minister.

      I remember reading that the Brits thought that, whilst other countries needed something written down, British governments were rather superior to all that sort of stuff.

      *rolls eyes*


      1. LOL…….Yes, lesser peoples need to write things down. Presumably they will forget it otherwise. 😉

        Sounds like the Irish made good use of the time after the War of Independence to write down the important stuff. I see that the 1937 Constitution in effect today replaced the 1922 Constitution of the Irish Free State.

        After posting the comments, I read more carefully and clicked on your link to Theresa May’s “birthright” statement. Lots of comments about “unique citizenship rights.” Clearly she had read the Irish constitution. 😉

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Excellent stuff, Danny! I am going to keep your things about Ireland for reference.

          As for constitutions – who needs a constitution when your philosophy is that sovereignty flows from the monarch in Parliament? Constitutions are for the little people, and Johnny Foreigner… Important, proper English people need nothing other than Magna Carta, and to hell with all those new-fangled human rights thingies that those damn revolutionary lefties have been going on about for the past few hundred years! Hanging’s too good for the likes of them! No, we’ll be much better off taking back control and going back to the good old days, when the serfs had no more so-called rights than parsnips – and you can cook and eat parsnips!

          As for so-called popular sovereignty, who do they think they’re kidding? Have they never heard of the Divine Right of Kings? Still, we wouldn’t want them to be properly educated, would we, it might give them ideas above their station, make them uppity, make them forget that they’re only and forever hewers of wood and drawers of water, like it says in the Bible…

          You know, I’m just totally sick of being treated as a subject, not a citizen, by this top-down government of limited legitimacy but infinite sovereignty, ultimate power with pretty much zero responsibility, because it wouldn’t surprise me one little bit if They decide, post-Brexit, that they’re just not going to bother going to all the trouble and expense of holding elections ever again… yes, that bad, but are you quite, quite sure I’m exaggerating?

          I just hope that I live long enough to see my own country completely out from under, and me with it.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Enjoyed the comments about constitutions Ed!

            I occasionally rant to my British friends about the insanity of democratic governance without a constitution that defines the very nature of the sovereign state and from which all governing authority flows. A document that includes a listing of the rights of the people upon which no Parliament or Monarch can ever infringe.

            The response is always that the British Constitution as a document is unwritten, but is embodied in a series of acts of Parliament going back to Magna Carta. When I ask what would happen if Parliament simply decided to rescind or drastically change those laws one of these days, I’m always assured that….well…….Parliament simply wouldn’t do that. If I press the issue of Monarchy, and inquire what would happen if the Queen decided one day to reassert royal Divine Right authority that has never been explicitly rescinded, I’m always assured that the old dear simply wouldn’t do THAT either. Everyone knows how we do things here, and we don’t need to have it written down for us. Lesser peoples may require that, but not the people of this sceptred isle, this other Eden. 😉

            Liked by 1 person

  11. Niko,

    Perhaps you and Lady May can explain how a partial hard border would work when the present Border Agency is already a shambles due, mainly, to May? I’ve just been to the Middle East without problems until being held up at Stanstead for over four hours without explanation or apology. It must be obvious even to the brainless – no offence – that the current shambolic system will never be able to cope with selective controls hence the need to refer to different ‘options’ which clearly will nor work in order to give the appearance of being in control. The sad thing is that the gullible, lured, seduced and deluded by the main-stream media, will believe that the Tory Government are truly interested in working out a ‘deal’ to benefit all UK ‘citizens’.

    PS: Hope you are in good and rude health!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Maybe Niko and Mayhem (good name for a band) will get into a huddle to come up with the answer for this.

      He’s certainly in rude health. Well, he’s certainly RUDE.


    1. Niko…..

      Of course I read this. Munguins’s Republic is my principal media source for fact and opinion.

      I have a hunch that the “MASTER-SERVANT” idea is still much in favor at the Palace. Probably with the Lords and Ladies of the aristocracy for that matter.

      There are simply Citizens of the Republic on this side of the pond. Of course there’s Trumpy too, which takes a lot of the fun out of it. You have Brexit and we have Trump. People voting the wrong way is surely a significant downside to representative democracy.

      As I was pondering Trump and Brexit and the lamps going out here and there, a few words occurred to me 😉 that I jotted down:

      Things fall apart. The center cannot hold.
      The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.

      Lots of that passionate intensity stuff going on around here! 😉

      Liked by 2 people

          1. Danny, I do not presume to speak for Mr. Munguin, of course, but I too am glad that he (a) is kind enough to publish me too; and (b) has such extremely sound judgement, as demonstrated by the fact that he publishes you. I love your contributions.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Ed…..And I feel the same for yours.

              It occurs to me that regarding my last comment to Niko, I should make it clear that my claim to have written the famous poetic words of W.B. Yates was intended as humor. Sometimes irony that seems so obvious when it comes to mind, does not necessarily come across that way on the printed page.

              I try not to commit plagiarism…….on THAT level at least. 😀

              Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.