Glasgow vs Edinburgh: Which city is better?

[Bono]

Len, where would you want to go in America? Yes their are some pretty amazing things here, I would classify them into 3 catagories; natural wonders and historic locations, cities, and amusement parks. Now amusement parks are fun, but they are sort of tourist traps really. Comercialized enviroments just for taking your money. Disney World and all that are defiantly worth 1 visit, especially if you have kids, but truth be told they are not my kind of vacations.

Cities are great, but I can't imagine it's all that different experience over here as opposed to over there. Obviously New York and London are two different cities, but at the end of the day they are over crowded concrete jungles. Tons of things to do, and I love visiting them, but not a place I would want to live.

Natural Wonders and historic locations are really the coolest things about this planet imo. That's why I mentioned Stonehenge and loch Ness. Over here, we don't have anything nearly as old as stonehenge, It's like visiting the pyramids or something. The oldest things in America are old military forts and such, which they are pretty cool. We have a couple in northern Michigan that date back to late 1600 early 1700 hundreds. We actually visited those last summer, I enjoyed that.

I get the feeling you would like to go to the grand canyon and things like that. Which I can honestly say I've never been there, it's like 2000 miles away give or take. But it's defiantly something that's on my bucket list. I did fly over the Rocky mountains once, that was pretty cool. So ya I get what your saying, America is so different geographically. Like where I live, we get 4 full seasons, we have tons of fresh water, and are right in the middle of the great lakes (which are really the most beautiful bodies of water on the planet. They are like fresh water seas. They are warm in the summer time, with beautiful sandy beaches, and of course are salt and shark free. We also get a lot of snow in the winter. So it's a completely different living experience from day California or Florida. Which those states are more sub tropical, warm weather all year round.

I would have to disagree about the great lakes. They are massive but they don't hold a candle to the Lakes up here in the Yukon as far as beauty goes. Plus the fishing up here is way better.

It's true there's barely anything in North America is older than 400 years. Like here in the Yukon historic sites from the Gold Rush are the oldest we have and that all started barely over 100 years ago. The Grand Canyon is amazing, the Rockies are awesome. Lost of the amazing scenery is in Canada's north but barely anyone knows, cares or ever goes. It's too "isolated". We all know about Niagara Falls but who knows about Victoria Falls? Nobody and they are twice as high and equally if not more spectacular. Canada's hidden secrets I guess.

The architecture in North America is boring as fuck too. Nothing is built to last more than 50 years it seems plus most of it is just boring and bland.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Bono

[Len Cnut]

Len, where would you want to go in America?

I dunno man, like, literally everywhere has its weird kinda romance for me? I'm a big like...lover of the old west so i guess I'd like to go to a lot of the more natural beauty places, plains and all that, it'd just be enthralling for me...but literally EVERYWHERE has its romance, some of these really remote towns out in Kansas or Iowa with a population of like 600 people and all that, it'd be fascinating, deserts like Death Valley etc, fuckin' Manson Family land But then places like Prescott Arizona who i believe have like the oldest rodeo in American history. I'd like to go and see the fuckin' plantations and shit, I'd like to see fuckin' Angola penitentiary, I'd like to see fuckin' San Franciso by night and give myself nightmares about Kerouac and the Zodiac, I'd like to see Los Angeles with a massive bag of cocaine, I'd go nuts over every little fuckin' street in New York, something happened with a Len interest attached to it EVERYWHERE in New York, shit, it's the Audobon Ballroom where Malcolm X got shot, shit, this is where fuckin' hip hop started, Sedgewick Ave, shit, this is Stapleton where the Wu Tang came from, shit this is Madison Square Garden where Ali Frazier fought, I'd love to see your state, from the fuckin' trailer parks to the big fuckin' monument of the great Joe Louis, I'd like to go to fuckin' Nashville and Bakersfield and see some fuckin' horrible crud chewin' country players, I'd like to see Dodge City, holy fuck, how cool would Dodge City be, is there even still a Dodge City?!?!

I'd like to see Manassa Colorado and check out what was in that fuckin' air that Jack Dempsey breathed and see if i can't catch some of it, you could name me a state and i could name you scores of different little romantic notions that make it a visit-worthy place to me, i probably fancy your culture more than you do

I know the names of tons of little different towns, obscure ones that i just looked up or heard of and just fell in love with the idea of, Cedar Vale Kansas, Hopkinton Iowa, just tons of em. Indian reservations, something else Id like to see. I could go on forever. 5th Street Gym in Miami! Kronk Gym, Fighters Paradise!

Edited September 9, 2015 by Len B'stard

[Iron MikeyJ]

Len, where would you want to go in America? Yes their are some pretty amazing things here, I would classify them into 3 catagories; natural wonders and historic locations, cities, and amusement parks. Now amusement parks are fun, but they are sort of tourist traps really. Comercialized enviroments just for taking your money. Disney World and all that are defiantly worth 1 visit, especially if you have kids, but truth be told they are not my kind of vacations.

Cities are great, but I can't imagine it's all that different experience over here as opposed to over there. Obviously New York and London are two different cities, but at the end of the day they are over crowded concrete jungles. Tons of things to do, and I love visiting them, but not a place I would want to live.

Natural Wonders and historic locations are really the coolest things about this planet imo. That's why I mentioned Stonehenge and loch Ness. Over here, we don't have anything nearly as old as stonehenge, It's like visiting the pyramids or something. The oldest things in America are old military forts and such, which they are pretty cool. We have a couple in northern Michigan that date back to late 1600 early 1700 hundreds. We actually visited those last summer, I enjoyed that.

I get the feeling you would like to go to the grand canyon and things like that. Which I can honestly say I've never been there, it's like 2000 miles away give or take. But it's defiantly something that's on my bucket list. I did fly over the Rocky mountains once, that was pretty cool. So ya I get what your saying, America is so different geographically. Like where I live, we get 4 full seasons, we have tons of fresh water, and are right in the middle of the great lakes (which are really the most beautiful bodies of water on the planet. They are like fresh water seas. They are warm in the summer time, with beautiful sandy beaches, and of course are salt and shark free. We also get a lot of snow in the winter. So it's a completely different living experience from day California or Florida. Which those states are more sub tropical, warm weather all year round.

I would have to disagree about the great lakes. They are massive but they don't hold a candle to the Lakes up here in the Yukon as far as beauty goes. Plus the fishing up here is way better.

You have a point about the fishing, and perhaps scenic beauty, but I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about sand, water, weather, and overall beach beauty. Now not all the great lakes are equal, superior is cold as Shit and scary as hell. It's literally one of the most dangerous bodies of water on the planet. Huron is pretty, but also can have Rocky beaches in places, not really the best for enjoying the water. Erie and Ontario? Don't even waste your time...

But Lake Michigan, on the other hand is something special. I can't speak for the Chicago or Wisconsin side of the lake, but the Michigan side is down right remarkable. Lake Michigan during the summer months has the most beautiful beaches in the entire country IMO. Honestly I would say some of the best beaches in the Caribbean don't have shit on Lake Michigan. The sand is the beautiful white sand, and literally the entire west side of the state is one giant beach. The water gets decently warm enough so you can actually spend the day I'm the water, if you choose. Plus, and I can't stress this enough, it is salt and shark free. The only thing you have to worry are undertows, which are a danger on any big body of water. But no jellyfish, no sharks, nothing of danger. I've been to beaches all over Florida and texas, and NONE of them have anything on Lake Michigan. Its literally a hidden gem right in the middle of the USA. Crystal blue water, white sandy beaches, and no salt or sharks. Also let me add, we have something called the sleeping bear sand dunes, which are giant sand dunes that border the NW portion of Lake Michigan. You can literally roll down a giant sand mountain right into the water. Honestly I don't know if their is anything like it anywhere else in the world.

How are those Canadian beaches? Pretty chilly A? ?

As far as fishing goes, I've caught steelheads, bass, pike, Lake trout, and plenty other fish all in my state. It might not be as good as canada, but northern michigan, especially the upper peninsula is probably the closest thing to Canada you can find in the continental US.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Iron MikeyJ

[DieselDaisy]

No brown bags, Len, at least according to the yanks here? Is an America, newly accustomed to using handles on their grocery bags, really a country worth visiting?

[Len Cnut]

See you've ruined it now, no brown bags? Fuck that for a laugh

[DieselDaisy]

Everyone aspires to the American dream,

[Len Cnut]

Anarchy in the UK for me cheers (not literally, that'd just be shite)

Edited September 9, 2015 by Len B'stard

[Gracii Guns]

Regarding Stonehenge, studies suggest that the rock got there by an Ice Age drift (don't ask me for technical terms), however English Heritage are still peddling the idea that they were transported from Wales, which by comparison, is a ridiculous notion.

[GivenToFly]

I've only ever heard good things about Edinburgh; I've only heard bad things about Glasgow!

I moved to Edinburgh permanently 10 days ago and i can tell you it is incredibly gorgeous. As for fun, nightlife and stuff like that I'm really not the person to ask. I haven't been to Glasgow yet.

Really? Only bad things? I mean, I understand Edinburgh getting more attention as I've said above, but you've only heard bad things about Glasgow? What kind of bad things?

The good news is it's only going to very pleasantly surprise you... I'm not even from there and I love it with all my heart. There's so much good in Glasgow! You need to get yourself over to the West (best) Coast ASAP!

That was a joke. Anyway, it's all just funny stereotypes mostly related to alcoholism.

[DieselDaisy]

Regarding Stonehenge, studies suggest that the rock got there by an Ice Age drift (don't ask me for technical terms), however English Heritage are still peddling the idea that they were transported from Wales, which by comparison, is a ridiculous notion.

They are from the Preseli Hills - you are supporting the theory that a glacier shifted them from that location to Wiltshire rather than human agency? It would have obviously taken a sophisticated society to lift those stones into place and align them with the solstice in the first place even if nature had done the initial hard work, so I cannot completely dismiss them being manhandled from Wales; it is however an interesting theory. There is an interesting analogy with the Egyptians, Aztec and Inca who seem to have possessed engineering abilities which still confound scholars today - I'm reminded of the Neil Young lyric concerning the Aztec, ''they built up with their bare hands, what we still can't do today'' ('Cortez the Killer').

Poor Stonehenge, once something profound and connected with ancient astronomical ritual, now an overpriced novelty jam being sold in a gift shop! Which nationality is this item being aimed at one wonders?

From the Stonehenge gift shop at a mere snip at £45.

[Graeme]

I've only ever heard good things about Edinburgh; I've only heard bad things about Glasgow!

I moved to Edinburgh permanently 10 days ago and i can tell you it is incredibly gorgeous. As for fun, nightlife and stuff like that I'm really not the person to ask. I haven't been to Glasgow yet.

Really? Only bad things? I mean, I understand Edinburgh getting more attention as I've said above, but you've only heard bad things about Glasgow? What kind of bad things?

The good news is it's only going to very pleasantly surprise you... I'm not even from there and I love it with all my heart. There's so much good in Glasgow! You need to get yourself over to the West (best) Coast ASAP!

That was a joke. Anyway, it's all just funny stereotypes mostly related to alcoholism.

Fair play, come visit anyway! I'd be happy to show you around!

Also, this thread seems to have rapidly filled up with non-Scottish shite . I am disappointed.

[DieselDaisy]

Take him on a typical 'Scottish' evening of pleasantries. First take him to Ibrox, get him drunk then get him into a tattoo parlour to make him look like a local, then, end the evening with a battered sausage and a tirade against the Sassenachs.

[Graeme]

Sounds like a plan... "Sasannaich" is the plural though.

[Mansin Humanity]

I'm obviously biased since I lived in Edinburgh and only visited Glasgow a few times (once I got too drunk at an Eric Church concert and wandered around the streets blackout until roughly 3am, great times!!), but I really wish I spent more time there. Glad to see you'll be doing both - report back!

[DieselDaisy]

It is Celtic for 'Saxon', isn't it? It is not even a correct term then since 'Saxon' does not equate 'English'; whatever happened to the poor Angles and Jutes?. I suppose it is no more incorrect than people using 'yank' for people from the United States, even paradoxically for people from the Southern states in that country!

[Graeme]

In modern Scots Gaelic, "Sasainn" is England and "Sasannaich" (Sasannach singular) refers to all English people.

[DieselDaisy]

In modern Scots Gaelic, "Sasainn" is England and "Sasannaich" (Sasannach singular) refers to all English people.

According to wikpedia it ''derives from the Scottish Gaelic Sasunnach meaning, originally, "Saxon", from the Latin "Saxones". (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxons#Etymology). My point is, if it is now used for England/English in a holistic sense, it is not a very correct term since the English have a much larger racial profile than mere 'Saxons'. Even just concentrating on the 5th century migrations, leaving aside the previous Britons, and subsequent Viking/Norman invasions, this is the extent of 'Saxon England',

You can see for yourself the extent of the Angle conquest - Saxons are not even the people who border the Scottish! Basically the Saxons were confined to the south-east of English, splitting into three branches. 'Sassenach' therefore is a thoroughly incorrect term when it is referred to the 'English' in toto. It only really makes sense if you are specifically referring to people from the south-east of England, from Middlesex, Sussex and Essex, etc. - counties who etymological owe their name from the same word source, 'Saxon'.

[Amir]

In modern Scots Gaelic, "Sasainn" is England and "Sasannaich" (Sasannach singular) refers to all English people.

According to wikpedia it ''derives from the Scottish Gaelic Sasunnach meaning, originally, "Saxon", from the Latin "Saxones". (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxons#Etymology). My point is, if it is now used for England/English in a holistic sense, it is not a very correct term since the English have a much larger racial profile than mere 'Saxons'. Even just concentrating on the 5th century migrations, leaving aside the previous Britons, and subsequent Viking/Norman invasions, this is the extent of 'Saxon England',

You can see for yourself the extent of the Angle conquest - Saxons are not even the people who border the Scottish! Basically the Saxons were confined to the south-east of English, splitting into three branches. 'Sassenach' therefore is a thoroughly incorrect term when it is referred to the 'English' in toto. It only really makes sense if you are specifically referring to people from the south-east of England, from Middlesex, Sussex and Essex, etc. - counties who etymological owe their name from the same word source, 'Saxon'.

Then you've also got Scoti being used to describe all inhabitants of Scotland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scoti

[Graeme]

Och well, these things just stick sometimes... Bit late to change it now, a' mo Shasannach choir.

[Snake-Pit]

In modern Scots Gaelic, "Sasainn" is England and "Sasannaich" (Sasannach singular) refers to all English people.

I thought Sasannaich was a Scottish swear word

I say 'ses-natch'

or 'ses-en-natch'

[DieselDaisy]

In modern Scots Gaelic, "Sasainn" is England and "Sasannaich" (Sasannach singular) refers to all English people.

According to wikpedia it ''derives from the Scottish Gaelic Sasunnach meaning, originally, "Saxon", from the Latin "Saxones". (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxons#Etymology). My point is, if it is now used for England/English in a holistic sense, it is not a very correct term since the English have a much larger racial profile than mere 'Saxons'. Even just concentrating on the 5th century migrations, leaving aside the previous Britons, and subsequent Viking/Norman invasions, this is the extent of 'Saxon England',

You can see for yourself the extent of the Angle conquest - Saxons are not even the people who border the Scottish! Basically the Saxons were confined to the south-east of English, splitting into three branches. 'Sassenach' therefore is a thoroughly incorrect term when it is referred to the 'English' in toto. It only really makes sense if you are specifically referring to people from the south-east of England, from Middlesex, Sussex and Essex, etc. - counties who etymological owe their name from the same word source, 'Saxon'.

Then you've also got Scoti being used to describe all inhabitants of Scotland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scoti

Isn't 'Scotland, Scottish' etc, a term accepted by most inhabitants of Scotland as representing their de facto/de jure nation-state, and doesn't it lack a pejorative implication (unless someone is making a series of jokes about battered items, alcoholism, tattoos and whisky-faced social club socialism - which in fairness, is usually me)? The analogy does not tally.

You have to remember that 'England', the term 'England' means literally England, which means "land of the Angles'', not the 'Saxons''. In a way the situation is completely the reverse of one-and-another. The Scottish state implies Scotland, Scottish etc. Sassenach, i.e. Saxons, represents the Saxon kingdoms, Jutes and Angles, the latter of which are the very nation who gave their name to 'England'. Later it would include Danelaw. It would make far more sense if the Scottish slur concerned the Angles (what is the Gaelic for Angles?) At least the Angles etymology instigated the word of the nation-state England, and English, Anglo, Anglais, etc.

[wasted]

I thought sassinach was scottish for douchebag.

[Len Cnut]

In modern Scots Gaelic, "Sasainn" is England and "Sasannaich" (Sasannach singular) refers to all English people.

I thought Sasannaich was a Scottish swear word

I say 'ses-natch'

or 'ses-en-natch'

It is, it's scottish for 'English cunts'

[wasted]

I was right. I went isle of jury on a whisky tour and stag hunting in peat fields.

[GivenToFly]

I've learned everything I know about Glasgow from Groundskeeper Willie.