England is just about bankrupt too...
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/iainmartin/4295219/Gordon-Brown-brings-Britain-to-the-edge-of-bankruptcy.html[^] So it seems when our financial system collapses the Brits will be their to suffer with us. Misery loves company.
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/iainmartin/4295219/Gordon-Brown-brings-Britain-to-the-edge-of-bankruptcy.html[^] So it seems when our financial system collapses the Brits will be their to suffer with us. Misery loves company.
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/the-role-of-government-ke_b_159031.html[^]
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/iainmartin/4295219/Gordon-Brown-brings-Britain-to-the-edge-of-bankruptcy.html[^] So it seems when our financial system collapses the Brits will be their to suffer with us. Misery loves company.
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
"In this gloom, the Prime Minister has but one slender hope: that somehow, by force of personality, the new President Obama engineers a rapid American recovery restoring global confidence, energising the markets and making us all forget this bad dream." On which case, yesterday's inaugural speech must have dashed his hopes.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/iainmartin/4295219/Gordon-Brown-brings-Britain-to-the-edge-of-bankruptcy.html[^] So it seems when our financial system collapses the Brits will be their to suffer with us. Misery loves company.
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
Britain != England and England != Britain :mad:
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/iainmartin/4295219/Gordon-Brown-brings-Britain-to-the-edge-of-bankruptcy.html[^] So it seems when our financial system collapses the Brits will be their to suffer with us. Misery loves company.
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
As the saying goes "We Live In Interesting Times" (read: quite frankly we're screwed at the moment). :~ We have a weekly BBC current affairs programme called This Week[^] which is rather entertaining - one of the commentators is Diane Abbott MP[^], who was (prior to his taking office) a longtime Brown supporter. It's been noticeable for the past year or so that she now refers to Brown as "Our Glorious Leader" (usually accompanied by a rolling of eyes of the "WTF does he think he's doing?" kind). In that I'm sure she's not alone - even amongst the cabinet (I actually feel rather sorry for Alistair Darling - he has the look of someone who knows he's about to get the blame for his micromanaging boss's screw-ups). A couple of years ago Alexi Sayle[^] (never one to be accused of being conservative!) had this to say on the subject of "Our Glorious Leader":
"Hope, as Emily Dickinson wrote, is that thing with feathers. Now, I thought I was completely without feathers, and so was very shocked at the disappointment I felt when Gordon Brown announced earlier in the week that he was in favour of ID cards, compulsory torture and a 200ft statue of Tony Blair bestriding Whitehall like a giant golden Colossus. As a left-winger, I supposed I shouldn't have allowed myself to hope. But I had read into Gordon Brown's grumpy silence that maybe he would introduce some more socialist policies. But there's something about elites - there's something about power where people want to hang on to it. And in the end, every elite with power, whether it's a fishing club or a book group, always turns into the Politburo of the Soviet Union."
As I see it, we've been sleepwalking into this and the other associated screw ups for a long time, so we've only ourselves to blame. After all, we elect the damn idiots in the first place. :doh: :doh: :doh:
Anna :rose: Having a bad bug day?
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/iainmartin/4295219/Gordon-Brown-brings-Britain-to-the-edge-of-bankruptcy.html[^] So it seems when our financial system collapses the Brits will be their to suffer with us. Misery loves company.
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
-
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
Britain != England and England != Britain :mad:
-
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
Britain != England and England != Britain :mad:
Actually it is only recently that England != Britain if you check historically England was used as a description of the united kingdom, it has only become seperated due to the nationalistic Scots etc wanting to distance themselves from England. Its perception rather than fact, a lot of laws refer to England yet apply to the whole country. Oh and if England is Bankrupt what would that make Scotland? :mad:
-
Actually it is only recently that England != Britain if you check historically England was used as a description of the united kingdom, it has only become seperated due to the nationalistic Scots etc wanting to distance themselves from England. Its perception rather than fact, a lot of laws refer to England yet apply to the whole country. Oh and if England is Bankrupt what would that make Scotland? :mad:
Alex hogarth wrote:
if you check historically England was used as a description of the united kingdom,
Define "historically"? I think you're wrong. Look back to Tudor times, for example: laws were passed "in Anglia et Cornubia", i.e. "in England and Cornwall", because Cornwall was recognised as having a separate identity and legal status. England has only been used by the English (and foreigners unaware of the actual situation) to mean the whole UK.
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/iainmartin/4295219/Gordon-Brown-brings-Britain-to-the-edge-of-bankruptcy.html[^] So it seems when our financial system collapses the Brits will be their to suffer with us. Misery loves company.
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
Put aside all the windy rhetoric for a moment but what would actually be the consequence of the banking system being allowed to fail and the country, essentially, becoming insolvent? Is that the road to anarchy? Should I pop down the road and purchase that 9mm and stock up on beans and bottled water? Or would Brown, for whom history appears to be not something he ever learns from, start a war or somesuch to distract the populace? I worry that we really are sleepwalking to disaster being led by a dead-man-walking and I don't believe we are a long way from it.
-
Alex hogarth wrote:
if you check historically England was used as a description of the united kingdom,
Define "historically"? I think you're wrong. Look back to Tudor times, for example: laws were passed "in Anglia et Cornubia", i.e. "in England and Cornwall", because Cornwall was recognised as having a separate identity and legal status. England has only been used by the English (and foreigners unaware of the actual situation) to mean the whole UK.
Oh Tudor! maybe due to a little fact that Scotland was a seperate COUNTRY may have something to do with it, maybe? certainly if you check back 100 years you will find England used to refer to the UK. As to your point about Cornwall - surely this is now refered to as England so contradicting your poiint?
-
Alex hogarth wrote:
if you check historically England was used as a description of the united kingdom,
Define "historically"? I think you're wrong. Look back to Tudor times, for example: laws were passed "in Anglia et Cornubia", i.e. "in England and Cornwall", because Cornwall was recognised as having a separate identity and legal status. England has only been used by the English (and foreigners unaware of the actual situation) to mean the whole UK.
I think the difference only means anything to those that don't live in England (where the vast majority of Brits live). For my part I am quite comfortable either way since I know what the person means and would not be upset by something quite so trivial.
-
Oh Tudor! maybe due to a little fact that Scotland was a seperate COUNTRY may have something to do with it, maybe? certainly if you check back 100 years you will find England used to refer to the UK. As to your point about Cornwall - surely this is now refered to as England so contradicting your poiint?
Cornwall's head of state is legally the Duke of Cornwall, not the British monarch, so strictly no, it isn't, although central government ignores the legal status and suppresses discussion of it in case it "embarrasses a member of the Royal Family". The powers of the Cornish stannary parliament to overturn Westminster legislation within Cornwall has never been revoked... :) England is still used to refer to the UK by people who don't know any better, but it's not correct usage.
-
I think the difference only means anything to those that don't live in England (where the vast majority of Brits live). For my part I am quite comfortable either way since I know what the person means and would not be upset by something quite so trivial.
Go to a Welsh-speaking area of Wales and call a Welshman "English" to his face in a crowded pub and see if he considers it "trivial". :D
-
Cornwall's head of state is legally the Duke of Cornwall, not the British monarch, so strictly no, it isn't, although central government ignores the legal status and suppresses discussion of it in case it "embarrasses a member of the Royal Family". The powers of the Cornish stannary parliament to overturn Westminster legislation within Cornwall has never been revoked... :) England is still used to refer to the UK by people who don't know any better, but it's not correct usage.
My point is that it is only recently that there has been a distinction between the two, it was similar to using United Kingdom and Britain, there is a difference but generaly they are interchangable - yes they are becoming seperate enitities but my point is that it is still valid to refer to the country as england. The fact that a defeated sub region would like it to be different does not make it so
-
My point is that it is only recently that there has been a distinction between the two, it was similar to using United Kingdom and Britain, there is a difference but generaly they are interchangable - yes they are becoming seperate enitities but my point is that it is still valid to refer to the country as england. The fact that a defeated sub region would like it to be different does not make it so
Errr no. I would not say "it is only recently that there has been a distinction between the two", I would say that there was only ever a brief period (now over) where Scotland and Wales were included under the title "England", and even then it was only by a subset of the population. The English dreams of Empire are over and they should just get used to being a rather small, very bankrupt nation with a damn good rugby team. :beer:
-
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
Britain != England and England != Britain :mad:
Steve_Harris wrote:
Britain != England and England != Britain
Sorry about that. It was just laziness on my part. I understand that Great Britain includes England, Scotland and Wales. The UK is the above and Northern Ireland, correct? But I don't know how your political system works. Gordon Brown is the Prime Minister of Britain. Does that include Scotland and Wales?
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
-
Put aside all the windy rhetoric for a moment but what would actually be the consequence of the banking system being allowed to fail and the country, essentially, becoming insolvent? Is that the road to anarchy? Should I pop down the road and purchase that 9mm and stock up on beans and bottled water? Or would Brown, for whom history appears to be not something he ever learns from, start a war or somesuch to distract the populace? I worry that we really are sleepwalking to disaster being led by a dead-man-walking and I don't believe we are a long way from it.
As a libertarian in America I believe in free markets. It saddens me that both here and over there the government refuses to the let the rich go broke. I guess its always been that way though...
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
-
Steve_Harris wrote:
Britain != England and England != Britain
Sorry about that. It was just laziness on my part. I understand that Great Britain includes England, Scotland and Wales. The UK is the above and Northern Ireland, correct? But I don't know how your political system works. Gordon Brown is the Prime Minister of Britain. Does that include Scotland and Wales?
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
Yes. And yes.
An owl in a sack troubles no man.
-
Actually it is only recently that England != Britain if you check historically England was used as a description of the united kingdom, it has only become seperated due to the nationalistic Scots etc wanting to distance themselves from England. Its perception rather than fact, a lot of laws refer to England yet apply to the whole country. Oh and if England is Bankrupt what would that make Scotland? :mad:
Alex hogarth wrote:
Oh and if England is Bankrupt what would that make Scotland? :mad:
I'm assuming you have some notion of what the answer should be considering you added a :mad: emoticon. Would you care to share your opinions on that particular matter. Or shall I just assume that it was the typical ignorant knee jerk little englander reaction to do with anything regarding the subject of Scots self-government.
* Developer Day Scotland 2 - Free community conference * The Blog of Colin Angus Mackay
Vogon Building and Loan advise that your planet is at risk if you do not keep up repayments on any mortgage secured upon it. Please remember that the force of gravity can go up as well as down.