“If we declare war, it might just look as if we were overreacting” Not sure if they meant it, but implicit in this statement is the idea that they might still be able to negotiate the oil rig contracts...
I like it too, though being a rail geek I did notice that the train was a class 55 Deltic and the soundtrack of it moving on it was actually a DMU (Diesel Multiple Unit).
LOL. Britain no longer has military capacity to do so. Even the Falklands were not possible without the US's behind the scene "approval" and reconnaissance help. It also could have been a lot uglier if France had delivered the rest of Exocet missiles to the Argentina (Which they already paid for) or had not allowed British to use their West African port facility. The fact of the matter is, UK does not have capacity to launch a meaningful military assault at a global scale by themselves anymore. Those days have ended even before the WW II. Best they can hope for is an united actions, usually headed by the US(NATO)
I think he was referring to it being easier when Britain WAS a colonial nation as upheaval in a colony would just be met with intimidating force instead of complicated diplomacy.
@@Tomartyr well the english have always treated them like a colony and the scotish deffinitly think of them self as scotish rathern then british and they to always have ill feeling abouit an englishmen
@@Tomartyr they were talking about whatever African president was making the statement about Scotland. They were talking about sending a gunboat to Kenya presumably since it got independence only a few years before and was a British colony.
@@ObsessedKangaroo for the English thats whole point of the bit English colonies start in Celtic nations. an if Brexit has done anything it has hit a modern low in anglo celtic relations. tiocfaidh ar la
I am an American and therefore have no complete understanding of these issues, but if I wanted to get out of such an embarrassing speech , I would simply declare to the press that the British people’s are of one accord and whereas we understand that in the past there have been difficulties, we are now one people, one nation and one power. The United Kingdom. In the name of God and the Queen. Amen. Then I would move the discussion to football and ice cream latte.
"It is indeed a catastrophe. A tragedy. A cataclysmic apocalyptic monumental calamity." So that's where Seinfeld's Jackie Chiles, attorney at law, got it from. It's grotesque, burlesque, humoresque.
Oh FFS, you should be spanked by a dominatrix for even daring to compare something this sublimely brilliant to that steaming pile of shit called Seinfeld. Then again, if you're British, you'd probably enjoy that, so we need to devise a different punishment...
@@R3dp055um And a less expensive one at that! Dominatrixes cost an arm and a leg if you want them to inflict Real punishment! Try explaining that expense item to the accountant.
@@R3dp055um I've got it! We'll have him audited by the Tax Office! Won't cost us a cent and he will remember that terrible event for the rest of his life.
@@R3dp055um Ah, but as another person has commented, the physicality of this sketch was borrowed from the Marx Brothers' A Night at the Opera. If it's good enough for Yes, Minister to poach from the Americans, then why shouldn't they do it in return (in tasteful, respectful moderation)?
When joking about sending in a gunboat, they mean into the fictional west African country of Buranda which is where the fictional new president (Jim's old classmate) and his provocative speech are from; nothing to do with Scotland per se. Anyone who knows British comedy will know it was actually the Goons who sent a gunboat into Sussex during Queen Anne's rain.
1. Do nothing 2. Issue a statement deploring sea 3. Lodge an official protest 4. Cut off aid 5. Break off diplomatic relations 6. Declare war What did I get wrong?
@@ToddQuinlan I believe he actually said "Issue a statement deploring Selim" aka. the president in question. i.e., try to discredit the president before he makes he speech.
LOL. Britain no longer has military capacity to do so. Even the Falklands were not possible without the US's behind the scene "approval" and reconnaissance help. It also could have been a lot uglier if France had delivered the rest of Exocet missiles to the Argentina (Which they already paid for) or had not allowed British to use their West African port facility. The fact of the matter is, UK does not have capacity to launch a meaningful military assault at a global scale by themselves anymore. Those days have ended even before the WW II. Best they can hope for is an united actions, usually headed by the US(NATO) :p
We have 192 nuclear warheads, conventional forces capabilities and proxy wars in the middle east are essentially irrelevant. If any nation invaded the UK, it would most likely end in the complete collapse of both countries. On the subject of the Falklands, if we hadn't of secured the island and the rounded civilians had been executed as intended, Argentina would have been invaded in a long bloody conflict, the outcome of which would have likely been similar to Vietnam. US non-committal minor intervention not happening might have lost the UK a few battles, but Argentina did not have anywhere near the production capabilities to win a war of attrition, which Thatcher would have been happy to commit to.
@ TheGeneral616 Do you honestly think we can get away with using nuclear weapon against ME or Latin American countries? "We got nukes so the lack of launching a conventional offence is irrelevant!" - Doesn't that sound like a six year old's logic to you? What do you think EU & the US will do?, let alone Russia, China, India who are always hostile to UK by default and ready to pounce on global political suicide such as Britain fucking using a nuke offensively? LOL. WTF? Also, there are many countries in the world that has more than enough capabilities to have nuclear warhead on ICBM and but they just do not bother due to current global political situation - Such as Japan, South Korea, and practically of most of major European nations (Germany, Italy, Spain), plus other wealthy English speaking nations like Australia and Canada ect... You seem to be under the impression that nuclear capability is some sort of "out of reach new technology" :) when in fact its core was all developed in the 50s and 60s. And even the rudimentary level ICBM nuke is enough deterrent. It's only challenging for non-developed nations in isolation such as Iran & North Korea to develop nukes on ICBM and even they will eventually get there on their own, just like India, Pakistan and NK did. As for the wealthy and technologically developed nations mentioned earlier? LOL Japan, South Korea and Germany can definitely develop their own nukes on ICBM, if not their own nukes on SLBM whenever they want to. They are only not doing it because it's currently not worth the trouble. Now think about that again. Why the hell would it be not worth it? Don't forget our nuclear weapons are strictly for deterrent purpose as publicly proclaimed multiple fucking times before. If we ever use it so childishly as you have suggested or implied, that will be the end of the modern Britain as we know it. Think twice before saying something so stupid like that mate.
I have 3 diplomatic option- they have 6 even better. 1. Nothings going on people- as you were ladies and gentleman 2. Somethings seriously wrong- don't worry were on it. 3. We don't really know whats going on- im sure somebody else does. get him on the 'horn'.
@Toby Hamill You see a "unity of the British" isles as the "bigger picture"? You'll surely get some laughs with that in Dublin. By 2030, Northern Ireland will foreseeably have a catholic majority and will vote to join the Republic. If you're lucky you'll keep Britain's main island one country - but with the current govermnent, SNP get an enormous tailwind for their policies. It looks as if the Tories actually tried to help them...
@Toby Hamill Well, so you say that 1000 years of beating up one another "intertwines" you so strongly that you have to merge into one country? That's a lot worse than Leavers' understanding of how the EU works....
@@notroll1279 they are certainly still intertwined though and j can't imagine seccesion will go particularly well. If I've learned one thong over the past couple of years it's that the government has gotten really good at screwing people over.
A ship in the British royal navy is traditionally one that requires boats for common operation- getting men to shore etc. and usually can carry boats itself. Having said that, non ocean going vessels are often refered to as boats regardless of size. Gunboat's express purpose is bombardment of inland positions, and certainly early versions were indeed boats. Bigger ones were referred to as gunships, but that fell out of more modern use, especially as helicopters with ground attack characteristics inherited the title. Another factor in losing the distinction was the term "Gunboat diplomacy", as well as sailor's lack of recognition of non-ship of the lines or warships as true ships. Boat is a common insult in the navy, except the submarine service, which embraced it. (submarines obviously cannot have things like lifeboats)
in the old days everything with two or fewer masts was a boat and more than two was a ship. this naming convention applied world wide. that's very rare. after the age of sail the only real definition that survived to this day is that of the german navy, where the difference between a boat and a ship is whether or not it has a first officer. meaning an officer who has the disciplinary power of a company leader. on a boat you will at best find a first officer of the watch who has no disciplinary power.
Doesnt Britain have scottish units throughout its military not just personell? And the Royal Navy have ships there too berthed and patrolling on their behalf. Scotland would have to self fund their own forces, from their own taxes, not a popular idea to sell your citizens 😊
Context helps: If we go their country to shoot all their people and steal all their oil and riches and natural resources and take over it is colonialism and it is wrong. If they come to our country to work and pay tax and be a productive member of society it is diversity and our strength.
Развлечения
I like the fact that they're all discussing this with Hacker's pants literally down.
Only his trousers
"Imperialist yolk." That's brilliant.
Oh for for a current show to be half as clever.
Sigh...
@@scotthardy6485 thanks for the explanation of the joke I got, good sir
“If we declare war, it might just look as if we were overreacting”
Not sure if they meant it, but implicit in this statement is the idea that they might still be able to negotiate the oil rig contracts...
After they establish a puppet government that is
If Britain went to war and took it over, the oil would belong to the Great British Empire, long may it reign!
I like it too, though being a rail geek I did notice that the train was a class 55 Deltic and the soundtrack of it moving on it was actually a DMU (Diesel Multiple Unit).
and, of course, it's a reminder of the days when sleepers left from KX
And the platform indicator showed "off" when the signal was at red. The indicator should show "on" at a red signal. Pedantic I know.
As soon as I saw the train was an overnight Intercity, the Class 55 made perfect sense. Presumably going up the EMCL to the Scottish capital?
I was going to call you a nerd but then I got intimidated by the other 3 people who responded to you
This comment thread is all the more amusing as I suspect that everyone contributing knows full well how naff it is.
What on earth is the Royal Navy for if not to provide an ample supply of intimidating gunboats for diplomatic missions?
exactly
Looking good as the U.S. Navy's loyal sidekick?
LOL. Britain no longer has military capacity to do so. Even the Falklands were not possible without the US's behind the scene "approval" and reconnaissance help. It also could have been a lot uglier if France had delivered the rest of Exocet missiles to the Argentina (Which they already paid for) or had not allowed British to use their West African port facility.
The fact of the matter is, UK does not have capacity to launch a meaningful military assault at a global scale by themselves anymore. Those days have ended even before the WW II. Best they can hope for is an united actions, usually headed by the US(NATO)
Like it was said in the radio programme "Delve Special" the Royal Navy is for "Showing the flag"...
@
Johannes Liechtenauer
LOL so, your point is?
Even in the future there is an appreciation for gunboats. "The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank. -- Montgomery Scott"
"It is indeed a catastrophy. A tragedy. A cataclysmic, apocalyptic, monumental calamity. And *you* did it."
I may have used this once or twice.
Who wouldn't?
Send in the gunboat... Well your heir across the Atlantic surely has learned this trick.
Like daddy UK but better
Ah yes, how to avoid accusations of colonialism: send in a gunboat.
I think he was referring to it being easier when Britain WAS a colonial nation as upheaval in a colony would just be met with intimidating force instead of complicated diplomacy.
@@dean1039 "upheaval in a colony" They were talking about Scotland.
@@Tomartyr well the english have always treated them like a colony and the scotish deffinitly think of them self as scotish rathern then british and they to always have ill feeling abouit an englishmen
@@patthonsirilim5739 Well, at last count, only about 44.7 % of them.
@@Tomartyr they were talking about whatever African president was making the statement about Scotland. They were talking about sending a gunboat to Kenya presumably since it got independence only a few years before and was a British colony.
I just love the way he says 'Irish'
Ryan Morgan and then the way he looks around as if he's expecting to find one hiding under the bed hahaha
he is worried about their being a bomb
We were a pretty big deal for the British back then.
@@ObsessedKangaroo for the English thats whole point of the bit English colonies start in Celtic nations. an if Brexit has done anything it has hit a modern low in anglo celtic relations. tiocfaidh ar la
The first time I heard it I thought he said 'Welsh.' Which might have also been funny.
"I suppose that IS absolutely...out of the question?"
oh for the days of gunboat diplomacy...
Yes Jim, though it would be effective...it has certain...'unfortunate' long term effects...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampico_Affair
I am an American and therefore have no complete understanding of these issues, but if I wanted to get out of such an embarrassing speech , I would simply declare to the press that the British people’s are of one accord and whereas we understand that in the past there have been difficulties, we are now one people, one nation and one power. The United Kingdom. In the name of God and the Queen. Amen.
Then I would move the discussion to football and ice cream latte.
@@TheLocoUnion no，you just stir it up. ignoring that speech is the best way，government controls media anyway
tom jerry that might work too!!!
The Standing Committee
"It is indeed a catastrophe. A tragedy. A cataclysmic apocalyptic monumental calamity."
So that's where Seinfeld's Jackie Chiles, attorney at law, got it from. It's grotesque, burlesque, humoresque.
actually, Jackie Chiles was based on Johnie Cochran, OJ Simpson's well-spoken lawyer
Oh FFS, you should be spanked by a dominatrix for even daring to compare something this sublimely brilliant to that steaming pile of shit called Seinfeld.
Then again, if you're British, you'd probably enjoy that, so we need to devise a different punishment...
@@R3dp055um And a less expensive one at that! Dominatrixes cost an arm and a leg if you want them to inflict Real punishment! Try explaining that expense item to the accountant.
@@R3dp055um I've got it! We'll have him audited by the Tax Office! Won't cost us a cent and he will remember that terrible event for the rest of his life.
@@R3dp055um Ah, but as another person has commented, the physicality of this sketch was borrowed from the Marx Brothers' A Night at the Opera. If it's good enough for Yes, Minister to poach from the Americans, then why shouldn't they do it in return (in tasteful, respectful moderation)?
Not egg minister, just imperialist yolk
Yoke.
Homophones
Better than imperialist white.
LOL the puns just write themselves 😅
@@martinXY that's the fucking joke you imbecile, it's a pun
It's the Yes, Minister equivalent of the stateroom scene from _A Night at the Opera_!
Just having a quick scan of the comments to see if anyone picked up the similarity between this and the Marx Brothers sketch
This was modeled on the movie. But after it aired they found out scenes like this really occurred with one PM who liked to travel by train.
A moving train! I have to show this to my children.
No words! I just love it!
From his description, option 3 seems the most prudent.
And point out that they're causing their own troubles by banning free markets with state ownership.
they missed option 7: you impose economic sanctions,
Those two-bit African countries don't have economies!
mr bojangles that’s within cutting aid
While negotiating an oil rig contract?
@@Septimus_ii The ultimately didn't even get the contract . The should have just cancelled the president's visit .
Pobably because they do nothing.
everyone piling in is reminiscent of the famous stateroom scene in "A Night At The Opera"
That's the one I was thinking of too.
Brilliant!
When joking about sending in a gunboat, they mean into the fictional west African country of Buranda which is where the fictional new president (Jim's old classmate) and his provocative speech are from; nothing to do with Scotland per se. Anyone who knows British comedy will know it was actually the Goons who sent a gunboat into Sussex during Queen Anne's rain.
"the immortal seven" invited "the Goons"
It's true, they sent the gunship Helga up the river liffy in Dublin. It ended the Easter rising in 1916
Such a shame really.
Helga's make a habit out of ruining any uprising, especially those below the belt.
Love the old Mk1 sleepers!
1. Do nothing
2. Issue a statement deploring sea
3. Lodge an official protest
4. Cut off aid
5. Break off diplomatic relations
6. Declare war
What did I get wrong?
2. Issue a statement deploring the scene.
@@ToddQuinlan Thanks - I don't know if it was the accent or the audio, or a mix, but I couldn't make it out, or think of a word that made sense.
@@ToddQuinlan I believe he actually said "Issue a statement deploring Selim" aka. the president in question. i.e., try to discredit the president before he makes he speech.
I still vote for sending in the gunboat
its the only thing those peoples understand
LOL. Britain no longer has military capacity to do so. Even the Falklands were not possible without the US's behind the scene "approval" and reconnaissance help. It also could have been a lot uglier if France had delivered the rest of Exocet missiles to the Argentina (Which they already paid for) or had not allowed British to use their West African port facility.
The fact of the matter is, UK does not have capacity to launch a meaningful military assault at a global scale by themselves anymore. Those days have ended even before the WW II. Best they can hope for is an united actions, usually headed by the US(NATO)
:p
We have 192 nuclear warheads, conventional forces capabilities and proxy wars in the middle east are essentially irrelevant. If any nation invaded the UK, it would most likely end in the complete collapse of both countries.
On the subject of the Falklands, if we hadn't of secured the island and the rounded civilians had been executed as intended, Argentina would have been invaded in a long bloody conflict, the outcome of which would have likely been similar to Vietnam. US non-committal minor intervention not happening might have lost the UK a few battles, but Argentina did not have anywhere near the production capabilities to win a war of attrition, which Thatcher would have been happy to commit to.
@ TheGeneral616
Do you honestly think we can get away with using nuclear weapon against ME or Latin American countries? "We got nukes so the lack of launching a conventional offence is irrelevant!" - Doesn't that sound like a six year old's logic to you? What do you think EU & the US will do?, let alone Russia, China, India who are always hostile to UK by default and ready to pounce on global political suicide such as Britain fucking using a nuke offensively? LOL. WTF?
Also, there are many countries in the world that has more than enough capabilities to have nuclear warhead on ICBM and but they just do not bother due to current global political situation - Such as Japan, South Korea, and practically of most of major European nations (Germany, Italy, Spain), plus other wealthy English speaking nations like Australia and Canada ect...
You seem to be under the impression that nuclear capability is some sort of "out of reach new technology" :) when in fact its core was all developed in the 50s and 60s. And even the rudimentary level ICBM nuke is enough deterrent.
It's only challenging for non-developed nations in isolation such as Iran & North Korea to develop nukes on ICBM and even they will eventually get there on their own, just like India, Pakistan and NK did.
As for the wealthy and technologically developed nations mentioned earlier? LOL Japan, South Korea and Germany can definitely develop their own nukes on ICBM, if not their own nukes on SLBM whenever they want to. They are only not doing it because it's currently not worth the trouble. Now think about that again. Why the hell would it be not worth it?
Don't forget our nuclear weapons are strictly for deterrent purpose as publicly proclaimed multiple fucking times before. If we ever use it so childishly as you have suggested or implied, that will be the end of the modern Britain as we know it.
Think twice before saying something so stupid like that mate.
We are talking gunboat, not occupation...
At 2:22 I have a vision where Professor Higgins and Colonel Pickering barges on stage and start singing.
What coincidence that I read this morning that Iranian gun boats tried to stop a British tanker
😂
good old day
we could sing 'abide with me'
Knock knock. It's the United Kingdom. With huge boats (with guns; gunboats).
Yeah, not huge guns, just huge boats!
the more things change the more they stay the same
I have 3 diplomatic option- they have 6 even better.
1. Nothings going on people- as you were ladies and gentleman
2. Somethings seriously wrong- don't worry were on it.
3. We don't really know whats going on- im sure somebody else does. get him on the 'horn'.
And then Scotland wants a referendum.
Somehow prophetic about the possibility of Scottish Independence to ever be a thing again. Well, thanks, David, Theresa and BoJo...
why do you think we keep the HMS victory commissioned? just encase we need the old option 7 :)
@Toby Hamill That's the same merry optimism I recall seeing with David Cameron in 2015.
@Toby Hamill You see a "unity of the British" isles as the "bigger picture"?
You'll surely get some laughs with that in Dublin. By 2030, Northern Ireland will foreseeably have a catholic majority and will vote to join the Republic.
If you're lucky you'll keep Britain's main island one country - but with the current govermnent, SNP get an enormous tailwind for their policies. It looks as if the Tories actually tried to help them...
@Toby Hamill
Well, so you say that 1000 years of beating up one another "intertwines" you so strongly that you have to merge into one country?
That's a lot worse than Leavers' understanding of how the EU works....
@@notroll1279 they are certainly still intertwined though and j can't imagine seccesion will go particularly well. If I've learned one thong over the past couple of years it's that the government has gotten really good at screwing people over.
That Celtic sounds like a dmu. And you probably shouldn’t give right away until the signals cleared.
We can have sermon next week I thought it was a good time for a Christmas movie night
@Wirrn unless the former is downed over the sea and the latter is part of the "Battleship Yamato/Starblazers" franchise :)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunship
Read the first sentence.
@@jermainerace4156 So you didn't get the joke, then?
Perfectly reflects the establishment attitude to Scotland in the 80s...
@archivesbc gunships fly, gunboats float. :)
Anyone know what epusode this was in?
I would suggest meeting the opposition politician in the country concerned. That will frighten the trouble maker.
@svartekaptenen The shortest war in history. 40 minutes.
3:52 and yet they just sent them to the Channel Islands
With how it turned out in the end they might as well cut off diplomatic relations
Humphrey had a bit too much fun with this whole issue
@phlarrdboi yes, thats the yoke!
@nyc999 yoke not yolk.
Which episode is this?
Second one, The Official Visit.
min 03:10 1 do nothing, 2 deploring see, 3 large and official protest, 4 cutoff aid, 5 breakoff diplomatic relations & 6 declare war...
Eh. Now just send in a drone or two.
@MikeTMerciless But unless they actually build the HMS Queen Elizabeth, the Royal Navy will have no carriers, just a helicopter landing ship.
I thought the QE was an ocean liner!
Wasn't the Prince of Wales a battleship?
Yep, one of KGVI class, penultimate battleship desing commisioned by RN.
Built.
@@gregb6469 There have been 7 ships named "Prince of Wales" in the RN. The current one is an aircraft carrier.
@VigilanteAgumon gunboat, gunship - what's the difference? :D
Britain sends gunboats and America sends gunships
non really.
A ship in the British royal navy is traditionally one that requires boats for common operation- getting men to shore etc. and usually can carry boats itself. Having said that, non ocean going vessels are often refered to as boats regardless of size.
Gunboat's express purpose is bombardment of inland positions, and certainly early versions were indeed boats. Bigger ones were referred to as gunships, but that fell out of more modern use, especially as helicopters with ground attack characteristics inherited the title. Another factor in losing the distinction was the term "Gunboat diplomacy", as well as sailor's lack of recognition of non-ship of the lines or warships as true ships. Boat is a common insult in the navy, except the submarine service, which embraced it. (submarines obviously cannot have things like lifeboats)
@Carbon 12
a man who knows his business, excellent
now why in hells name weren't you on that train?!
in the old days everything with two or fewer masts was a boat and more than two was a ship. this naming convention applied world wide. that's very rare. after the age of sail the only real definition that survived to this day is that of the german navy, where the difference between a boat and a ship is whether or not it has a first officer. meaning an officer who has the disciplinary power of a company leader. on a boat you will at best find a first officer of the watch who has no disciplinary power.
Did anyone understand the train announcer at the beginning?
22:13 To Edinburgh Will Leave from Platform 7. mumble about Middlesborough and York
High Path Thank you👋
Train announcers are not there to be understood, they are there to fill the air with officious noise.
HUMPY!!!
Jim has nice legs by the way. 😆😆😆
did foreign secretary used hindi word "pakka"?
It is in the OED
Pukka is how the word is spelled in English.
Brexit Deal
min 03:14 usual six options...
Nothing wrong with a bit of cheeky imperialism minister, just don't get caught committing war crimes with your trousers down. Oh wait.
Well to be honest, if they only have Skirmishers, a Gunboat would be very frightening
I identify as michael jackson any my pronouns are "he/hee"
Who heres from WP
Hilarious, but the idea was pinched from the Marx Brothers.
That's interesting. Do you know which Marx Bros. movie they got it from?
"A Night At The Opera" isn't it?
Correct.
This is painful to watch in corona age
Meanwhile, in Ukraine...
Doesnt Britain have scottish units throughout its military not just personell? And the Royal Navy have ships there too berthed and patrolling on their behalf. Scotland would have to self fund their own forces, from their own taxes, not a popular idea to sell your citizens 😊
Scotland is Great Britain, since 1707. The king of Scotland James VI became James I of England in 1603 or thereabouts.
If we go to their country it is colonialism and is wrong
If they come to our country it is diversity and our strength.
Context helps:
If we go their country to shoot all their people and steal all their oil and riches and natural resources and take over it is colonialism and it is wrong.
If they come to our country to work and pay tax and be a productive member of society it is diversity and our strength.
@@sithdowell3788 *If* they are productive citizens and don't deprive the British of resources
Context is indeed important
@@serbanandreimarin5988 And how would an immigrant deprive a country of resources?
@@sithdowell3788 Getting a job that the British are also seeking (while driving down wages), collecting welfare (the list can certainly go on)
@@serbanandreimarin5988 So which is it? Working hard or claiming welfare?