England is just about bankrupt too...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
I take your point, but, then, the Welsh are a strange bunch.
-
I take your point, but, then, the Welsh are a strange bunch.
Funny, the British Celts think that of the English, too. Beer?
An owl in a sack troubles no man.
-
Funny, the British Celts think that of the English, too. Beer?
An owl in a sack troubles no man.
Good job I'm only mostly British or I'd get offended by everything.
-
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.
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Or shall I just assume that it was the typical ignorant knee jerk little englander reaction
Maybe I'm reading things differently to you, but this seems to be the only knee jerk reaction here.
You seem to have hit a nerve there! Remember the Scots have a no sense of humor when its about self rule. I do agree that his reaction was definitely high horse
-
You seem to have hit a nerve there! Remember the Scots have a no sense of humor when its about self rule. I do agree that his reaction was definitely high horse
Alex hogarth wrote:
You seem to have hit a nerve there!
So it seems. I guess we should always remember that the English are evil and the Scottish/Irish/Welsh/Anyone-else-with-a-chip-on-their-shoulder are downtrodden and unfairly treated... it's a terrible world.