Like the fact British ministers will look everywhere in the world with consequent huge costs for consultants and foreign trips to find solutions to problems, rather than seeking out and sharing good practice from within our four nations.
It is not pedantic. As I posted previously, research has shown when 'British' imagery that is actually English imagery is used, it is of negligible benefit outside of the south of England.
The CoE is relevant to England, not Scotland. The only impact it has are the bishops in the Lords and that has been a bone of contention since the union in 1707. Scotland's Reformation took a very different path to that in England so even the history is irrelevant to Scotland.
And again, Stonehenge is a physical site that can be visited in the modern entity that is the UK. The imagery of a long dead English king is promoting an ideology that is English only.
Promoting an ideology? It's an advert!!!!
That's why I think its pedantic. It's an advert, not a historical masterclass. It's intention is to draw in tourists, not educate them on the history of politics in the British Isles.
You should be glad there's nothing on there directly promoting Scotland anyway. No-one likes bloody tourists pottering around their hometown.
That's why I think its pedantic. It's an advert, not a historical masterclass. It's intention is to draw in tourists, not educate them on the history of politics in the British Isles.
You should be glad there's nothing on there directly promoting Scotland anyway. No-one likes bloody tourists pottering around their hometown.
You underestimate what tourists who visit heritage sites want. They do want to know the history and the politics of a site/person/age. If they are told anything worth seeing is in the south then that is where they go.
You also underestimate the value of tourism to the UK. Of course the coalition want to continue to peddle the Starkey version of English history as the be all and end of all of all UK heritage - that keeps the tourists flocking to the south of England.
I think you'll find that the Great in Great Britain is simply a geographical description and nothing at all to do with any implied superiority of Britain.
Indeed, tanstaafl, because it refers to Greater Britain to distinguish it from Lesser Britain which is better known these days as the French province of Brittany: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittany
You underestimate what tourists who visit heritage sites want. They do want to know the history and the politics of a site/person/age. If they are told anything worth seeing is in the south then that is where they go.
You also underestimate the value of tourism to the UK. Of course the coalition want to continue to peddle the Starkey version of English history as the be all and end of all of all UK heritage - that keeps the tourists flocking to the south of England.
If they wanted keep tourists to flocking to the south of England why bother to feature Glenfinnian? Plenty of sites in England could have substituted.
You're blowing this completely out of all proportion.
You underestimate what tourists who visit heritage sites want. They do want to know the history and the politics of a site/person/age. If they are told anything worth seeing is in the south then that is where they go.
But this ISN'T a heritage site. It is a poster! It is advertising! The poster is not there to educate tourists on the history of Britain, it is there to try and entice them to visit Britain. The heritage sites can then do the educating.
Tokenism. Westminster governments are very good at it.
You definitely are blowing this all out of proportion. If they feature Henry VIII, they are trying to make tourists go to the south. If they feature Glenfinnian, its just tokenism. Seems like there is nothing the government could do that would be satisfactory. It makes it sound like you wouldn't be happy unless all the posters featured Scottish attractions!
And all this over a picture on a poster of a dead man. Maybe you should complain to the ASA about it, on the basis of it being false advertising or something.
But this ISN'T a heritage site. It is a poster! It is advertising! The poster is not there to educate tourists on the history of Britain, it is there to try and entice them to visit Britain. The heritage sites can then do the educating.
You definitely are blowing this all out of proportion. If they feature Henry VIII, they are trying to make tourists go to the south. If they feature Glenfinnian, its just tokenism. Seems like there is nothing the government could do that would be satisfactory. It makes it sound like you wouldn't be happy unless all the posters featured Scottish attractions!
And all this over a picture on a poster of a dead man. Maybe you should complain to the ASA about it, on the basis of it being false advertising or something.
The poster is advertising 'British' heritage.
When there is a man parading around the world claiming to speak for all of Britain and then promoting England as Britain, there is a problem. Tourism is a major source of income and this campaign runs the very serious risk of damaging it outside of the south of England. Tourism is devolved for a reason and Cameron should have left well alone on the 'British' idea. He could have done a lot of harm to Scottish, Welsh and NI tourism which already faces a poor year thanks to the Olympics fiasco in 2012.
As to the Glenfinnan image, thanks to the Harry Potter films it is already a popular place to visit. It is also under the banner of countryside. This will not be on the radar of the visitors who want heritage information.
Perhaps the posters who fail to see the issue should check the figures for tourism. It is a very large income generator.
Tokenism. Westminster governments are very good at it.
So when one advert features a Scottish landscape it's "tokenism" yet when another features an English King, it's all part of a government conspiracy to exclude everything north of the border?
Besides, the advert on innovation features a Scottish business.
So when one advert features a Scottish landscape it's "tokenism" yet when another features an English King, it's all part of a government conspiracy to exclude everything north of the border?
Besides, the advert on innovation features a Scottish business.
Using a Scottish image already popular through successful films. No benefit there.
Heritage draws far more tourism and generates wealth. If Cameron wanted to interfere in a devolved area he should have done so with a 'British' image, not an English one.
And again the conspiracy theories are the reserve of unionists.
It would be so more simple if we just forgot this notion of Great Britain. Henry VIII is an English King and relevant to English history. Nothing wrong with that and all we need to do is say visit England. In Scotland we can do it the way we want to. Simple.
When there is a man parading around the world claiming to speak for all of Britain and then promoting England as Britain, there is a problem. Tourism is a major source of income and this campaign runs the very serious risk of damaging it outside of the south of England. Tourism is devolved for a reason and Cameron should have left well alone on the 'British' idea. He could have done a lot of harm to Scottish, Welsh and NI tourism which already faces a poor year thanks to the Olympics fiasco in 2012.
As to the Glenfinnan image, thanks to the Harry Potter films it is already a popular place to visit. It is also under the banner of countryside. This will not be on the radar of the visitors who want heritage information.
Perhaps the posters who fail to see the issue should check the figures for tourism. It is a very large income generator.
But Henry VIII IS part of British heritage, in that he was an important King in England, which is one of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom. The fact that he isn't a King of other constituent countries is not something a poster needs to explain.
I'm confused as to why you are so irate over this. Glenfinnan has nothing to do with England, but you don't see English poeple getting annoyed that an area in Scotland is being advertised as a part of Great Britain.
Each poster in the campaign is a different aspect of Great Britain. Like it or not, but the history of the royal family is a rather major part of the history of this country. They chose a very recognisable historical king for a tourism poster.
You're taking this far too personally. It's just a poster.
One thing we should be proud of is the Olympics next year. It'll be a great boost for the economy, and prove to the rest of the world what a great country this is!
In true British style though, businesses are already flogging "Olympic related" things that aren't really Olympic related at all...like car hire :eek:
Britain really is great though and I wouldn't rather be anywhere else
But Henry VIII IS part of British heritage, in that he was an important King in England, which is one of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom. The fact that he isn't a King of other constituent countries is not something a poster needs to explain.
I'm confused as to why you are so irate over this. Glenfinnan has nothing to do with England, but you don't see English poeple getting annoyed that an area in Scotland is being advertised as a part of Great Britain.
Each poster in the campaign is a different aspect of Great Britain. Like it or not, but the history of the royal family is a rather major part of the history of this country. They chose a very recognisable historical king for a tourism poster.
You're taking this far too personally. It's just a poster.
Well there you go. Wrong again! The poster features a King whose line died out with the death of his virgin daughter.
The present Royal Family are descended from the female line of the Scottish Royal line, the Stuarts.
It would be so more simple if we just forgot this notion of Great Britain. Henry VIII is an English King and relevant to English history. Nothing wrong with that and all we need to do is say visit England. In Scotland we can do it the way we want to. Simple.
Imagine the uproar if the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom had gone to the US and launched a "visit England" campaign. He would have been heavily criticised - and rightly so - for ignoring the charms of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
You seem to think that British history started in 1707. Henry VIII is as much part of our island's story as landmarks such as Stonehenge, Hadrian's wall or Edinburgh castle and people such as Shakespeare, Burns or Owain Glyndŵr.
I'm sure if they had used a portrait of Queen Victoria you would have found something else to be offended about.
Imagine the uproar if the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom had gone to the US and launched a "visit England" campaign. He would have been heavily criticised - and rightly so - for ignoring the charms of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
You seem to think that British history started in 1707. Henry VIII is as much part of our island's story as landmarks such as Stonehenge, Hadrian's wall or Edinburgh castle and people such as Shakespeare, Burns or Owain Glyndŵr.
I'm sure if they had used a portrait of Queen Victoria you would have found something else to be offended about.
We have established on this thread that all definitions of Great Britain include Scotland.
Henry VIII was a no mark in Scotland's history.
Ergo - He does not represent the heritage of Great Britain.
Imagine the uproar if the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom had gone to the US and launched a "visit England" campaign. He would have been heavily criticised - and rightly so - for ignoring the charms of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
You seem to think that British history started in 1707. Henry VIII is as much part of our island's story as landmarks such as Stonehenge, Hadrian's wall or Edinburgh castle and people such as Shakespeare, Burns or Owain Glyndŵr.
I'm sure if they had used a portrait of Queen Victoria you would have found something else to be offended about.
This is not about offence, this is about promoting tourism and this will damage Scottish, Welsh and NI heritage tourism.
All this fuss over a picture in an advertising campaign.
The cybernats are really scraping the bottom of the barrel with this one.
And as usual the unionists are so desperate to bow and scrape to Westminster they refuse to see the economical damage this could do to Scotland and tourism figures. :rolleyes:
But Henry VIII IS part of British heritage, in that he was an important King in England, which is one of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom. The fact that he isn't a King of other constituent countries is not something a poster needs to explain.
I'm confused as to why you are so irate over this. Glenfinnan has nothing to do with England, but you don't see English poeple getting annoyed that an area in Scotland is being advertised as a part of Great Britain.
Each poster in the campaign is a different aspect of Great Britain. Like it or not, but the history of the royal family is a rather major part of the history of this country. They chose a very recognisable historical king for a tourism poster.
You're taking this far too personally. It's just a poster.
It is not personal, it is about a serious issue - tourism and the contribution it makes to the economy of Scotland.
And as usual the unionists are so desperate to bow and scrape to Westminster they refuse to see the economical damage this could do to Scotland and tourism figures. :rolleyes:
Tourism is devolved for a reason.
A poster of King Henry VIII is going to ruin the Scottish tourism industry
That's the biggest piece of nonsense i've ever heard.
Comments
Eck included.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/2814053/First-Minister-Alex-Salmond-plans-a-jolly-to-the-Maldives.html
Promoting an ideology? It's an advert!!!!
That's why I think its pedantic. It's an advert, not a historical masterclass. It's intention is to draw in tourists, not educate them on the history of politics in the British Isles.
You should be glad there's nothing on there directly promoting Scotland anyway. No-one likes bloody tourists pottering around their hometown.
You underestimate what tourists who visit heritage sites want. They do want to know the history and the politics of a site/person/age. If they are told anything worth seeing is in the south then that is where they go.
You also underestimate the value of tourism to the UK. Of course the coalition want to continue to peddle the Starkey version of English history as the be all and end of all of all UK heritage - that keeps the tourists flocking to the south of England.
Indeed, tanstaafl, because it refers to Greater Britain to distinguish it from Lesser Britain which is better known these days as the French province of Brittany: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittany
You're blowing this completely out of all proportion.
Tokenism. Westminster governments are very good at it.
But this ISN'T a heritage site. It is a poster! It is advertising! The poster is not there to educate tourists on the history of Britain, it is there to try and entice them to visit Britain. The heritage sites can then do the educating.
You definitely are blowing this all out of proportion. If they feature Henry VIII, they are trying to make tourists go to the south. If they feature Glenfinnian, its just tokenism. Seems like there is nothing the government could do that would be satisfactory. It makes it sound like you wouldn't be happy unless all the posters featured Scottish attractions!
And all this over a picture on a poster of a dead man. Maybe you should complain to the ASA about it, on the basis of it being false advertising or something.
The poster is advertising 'British' heritage.
When there is a man parading around the world claiming to speak for all of Britain and then promoting England as Britain, there is a problem. Tourism is a major source of income and this campaign runs the very serious risk of damaging it outside of the south of England. Tourism is devolved for a reason and Cameron should have left well alone on the 'British' idea. He could have done a lot of harm to Scottish, Welsh and NI tourism which already faces a poor year thanks to the Olympics fiasco in 2012.
As to the Glenfinnan image, thanks to the Harry Potter films it is already a popular place to visit. It is also under the banner of countryside. This will not be on the radar of the visitors who want heritage information.
Perhaps the posters who fail to see the issue should check the figures for tourism. It is a very large income generator.
So when one advert features a Scottish landscape it's "tokenism" yet when another features an English King, it's all part of a government conspiracy to exclude everything north of the border?
Besides, the advert on innovation features a Scottish business.
Using a Scottish image already popular through successful films. No benefit there.
Heritage draws far more tourism and generates wealth. If Cameron wanted to interfere in a devolved area he should have done so with a 'British' image, not an English one.
And again the conspiracy theories are the reserve of unionists.
But Henry VIII IS part of British heritage, in that he was an important King in England, which is one of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom. The fact that he isn't a King of other constituent countries is not something a poster needs to explain.
I'm confused as to why you are so irate over this. Glenfinnan has nothing to do with England, but you don't see English poeple getting annoyed that an area in Scotland is being advertised as a part of Great Britain.
Each poster in the campaign is a different aspect of Great Britain. Like it or not, but the history of the royal family is a rather major part of the history of this country. They chose a very recognisable historical king for a tourism poster.
You're taking this far too personally. It's just a poster.
One thing we should be proud of is the Olympics next year. It'll be a great boost for the economy, and prove to the rest of the world what a great country this is!
In true British style though, businesses are already flogging "Olympic related" things that aren't really Olympic related at all...like car hire :eek:
Britain really is great though and I wouldn't rather be anywhere else
Well there you go. Wrong again! The poster features a King whose line died out with the death of his virgin daughter.
The present Royal Family are descended from the female line of the Scottish Royal line, the Stuarts.
Imagine the uproar if the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom had gone to the US and launched a "visit England" campaign. He would have been heavily criticised - and rightly so - for ignoring the charms of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
You seem to think that British history started in 1707. Henry VIII is as much part of our island's story as landmarks such as Stonehenge, Hadrian's wall or Edinburgh castle and people such as Shakespeare, Burns or Owain Glyndŵr.
I'm sure if they had used a portrait of Queen Victoria you would have found something else to be offended about.
We have established on this thread that all definitions of Great Britain include Scotland.
Henry VIII was a no mark in Scotland's history.
Ergo - He does not represent the heritage of Great Britain.
The cybernats are really scraping the bottom of the barrel with this one.
This is not about offence, this is about promoting tourism and this will damage Scottish, Welsh and NI heritage tourism.
And as usual the unionists are so desperate to bow and scrape to Westminster they refuse to see the economical damage this could do to Scotland and tourism figures. :rolleyes:
Tourism is devolved for a reason.
It is not personal, it is about a serious issue - tourism and the contribution it makes to the economy of Scotland.
His daughter would have been equally recognisable and she was relevant to the history of the whole of Great Britain and left a greater legacy..
It is another demonstration that the coalition do not think things through.
A poster of King Henry VIII is going to ruin the Scottish tourism industry
That's the biggest piece of nonsense i've ever heard.
If it's within the UK, it's a waste of money given that our government constantly talks the country and the majority of its people down.