Global Politics

Post all your political knockabout here:

:box1: :duel: :violent1: :kap:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: Mon 22 Oct, 2012 1:14 pm


Hey, at least Romney only dismissed the views of 47% of the American electorate - we have a Tory leader here (who just happens to be a lesbian) who has dismissed 88% of the Scottish population as "non-productive"

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-politics/6007-davidsons-attack-on-scotland-labeled-her-qmitt-romney-moment

I think they should be hugging each other.

:sign5:

[Dalewood]

My first presidential vote was for Gerald Ford.....boy, have things changed.

[arsenal]

Obama supports Argentina (over The Falkland Islands) therefore I am supporting Romney.

[ceejay]

Hey, at least Romney only dismissed the views of 47% of the American electorate - we have a Tory leader here (who just happens to be a lesbian) who has dismissed 88% of the Scottish population as "non-productive"
:sign5:
Do I smell a conspiracy here? Without Scotland, the Tories could dream of becoming the permanent party of power in the remainder of the UK (I think it would only be a dream, but that is another story). However, with their Unionist roots, they can't do anything but support that status quo so far as the independence referendum goes. But, should that vote oh-so-sadly go against them well, they'll just have to pick up the pieces and work with what they hope will be a built-in majority in England, won't they?
and it seems they are doing all they can to piss off the average Scot.............

Yes, ceejay it's not only a "dream"- the "permanent Tory majority without Labour MPs from Scotland" is also a myth!

On only ONE occasion in the last approx 40 years (in the second election of 1974 - giving Labour a majority of 3) and TWICE in the last approx 70 years (in 1964 - giving Labour a majority of 4) has the number of Labour MPs returned from Scotland affected the ultimate outcome.

In both cases incidentally it was Harold Wilson who was returned as PM, defeating Tory leaders Alec Douglas-Home and Ted Heath both of whom had proved to be extremely poor PMs.

:occasion9:

[cdnmatt]

Why anyone would ever decide Romney is a good idea is beyond my comprehension. Here's a good article about him titled, "Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital".

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... l-20120829 (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829)

If you can't view it due to being out of the US, goto http://hidemyass.com/, and enter the above URL.

[Khor tose]

Obama supports Argentina (over The Falkland Islands) therefore I am supporting Romney.

Not just the policy of Obama. America has had a policy of neutrality on this issue since WWII. This policy has been held by both republicans and democrats. America has offered to mediate between The UK and Argentina with the last proposal to do so under Ronald Reagan. In spite of our "neutrality" you beat the Argentinians with our help. We supplied Britain from our airbase on British held Ascension island with the latest sidewinders, and other tactical supplies. We also provided up to date military intelligence which was invaluable to the Naval Commander on the scene. Casper Weinberger at the direction of Ronald Reagan even offered the British use of one of our aircraft carriers, but was grateful the offer was never accepted. For their support both Weinberger and Reagan would late be awarded the British honor of Knight Commander of the British Empire.

As far as I know Romney has not advocated we change our policy of neutrality on this issue. I remind you we have both the Monroe doctrine and the Rio Pact which pledges us to come to the aid of a country in the Western hemisphere if they are attacked. In this case Argentina was the aggressor so we did not have to invoke either policy. Nor did the Nato alliance pledge us to support you as it only applies in Europe, and North of the tropic of Cancer in the Western Hemisphere. The US did then and I am sure we will always continue to support the UK who we clearly have a special relationship with. Very unfair of you to single out Obama for our policy of neutrality on this issue. Especially when this policy is the only one we can have by treaties we are signatory to.

There are dozens of books about this war, but the only one I am familiar with is Duncan Anderson's, "The Falkins War of 1982." which I found to be an outstanding account.

[arsenal]

Khor Tose: An interesting and well informed reply. I can handle the idea of neutrality as long as it is neutrality that allows us to use your airbases and you to fly out of Britain to bomb Libya. Obama actually supports Argentinas' claim to the Falklands. This is not the forum to discuss that, but any foreign leader who has that view will not get my support.

By the way. If you haven't seen Chris Rocks' stand up on the Obama/McCain Presidential race then do. It's a superb piece of comedy, quite breathtakingly skillful.

The reality is that America eventually came out in support of Britain only when there was no alternative (after sitting on the fence for a full month) and it seems from Khor Tose's post that the USA now claims to have won the Falklands War for us!

We know how that one works - we've heard it twice before - but it's new to hear it without a single combatant having been contributed.

:occasion9:

[Liamog]

The reality is the Malvinas are in South America. 290 miles of the coast of Argentina. In the South Atlantic.

No one in Britain had even heard of them until an unfortunate combination of circumstances (deranged dictatorial and highly unpopular governments in power in both Argentina and the UK, and the sniff of possible future oil & gas revenues) led to war over them. Now they are in effect a heavily subsidised UK military base and war memorial with sheep and (maybe) oil.

Not worth the lives that the conflict cost.

From recollection only - the spark was the UK announcing it planned to withdraw the remaining UK naval presence from the region and the Argentinian junta took this as a tacit sign that the UK would not intervene militarily if they invaded territory which they had long laid claim to.
They also believed that, as in Suez, the USA would not support British military action (which the USA didn't, until there became no alternative).

What the Argentinians (and the Americans) hadn't bargained on was a loopy and deeply unpopular British PM seizing a chance to project herself as a modern day Britannia on the world stage.

As you say, a shocking waste of lives.

[arsenal]

Liamog: Claims to the Islands go back hundreds of years with no one sure who was there first to establish a town, as with all disputed Islands no nation is totally convinced by their own claim. If they were they could go to one of the many international courts. But they don't. The Falkland Islanders quite clearly wish to remain British.
Scottish Guy: So would you have let Argentina keep them? Anyway, their military juntas' defeat played a very significant part in their downfall and imprisonment. Argentina has been democratic ever since and the families of the 'disappeared' have been able to find out what happened to them.
"A shocking waste of lives." Really, do you think so? I do not.

[Khor tose]

The reality is that America eventually came out in support of Britain only when there was no alternative (after sitting on the fence for a full month) and it seems from Khor Tose's post that the USA now claims to have won the Falklands War for us!

We know how that one works - we've heard it twice before - but it's new to hear it without a single combatant having been contributed.

:occasion9:

No that is not the reality, by any stretch of the imagination. We supported the UK from the moment Argentina invaded till the end of the war. Publicaly we tried to appear neutral, but we did everything possible to aid the UK in its fight with Argentina. You really should read something on the war, rather then shooting from the hip. No we did not win the war for you, but we did make sure it was a short war and had the UK lost the Hermes (The UK's only heavy aircraft carrier--kept well out to sea to protect her) we would have responded with one of our own carriers, if asked, as the Invincible did not have the air power to do it alone. Get a book and find out one of these things is wrong and give me the citation, other wise keep your hatred of America separate from your faulty use of facts.

I do not have a hatred of America - spare me the knee-jerk reaction please.
It is disappointing of you to try to read to my mind and fit it to your own agenda .

Further, I don't need to read Americanised versions of history - I did actually live through the Falklands War from the British perspective and I well remember (what was seen in Britain as) the dithering of Reagan, the duplicity of Haig and the outright hostility of Jeanne Kirkpatrick. Yes of course there were also supportive voices within the US administration but to suggest that the Reagan administration threw its full weight behind the UK from day one is debatable to say the least.

I clearly remember that at the time, people in Britain were mystified and frustrated by the American fence-sitting and the enormous pressure put upon Thatcher by the USA to "enter into negotiations" when it was a cut-and-dried case of British territory being invaded by Argentina. The general British feeling at the time was was that whilst Thatcher may have been deeply unpopular at that time - on the fundamental issue of who was the aggressor and who was the injured party, she was 100% right when she declared that there was "nothing to negotiate".

The FACT of the matter is that it was only the refusal from the Argentine junta to withdraw and the refusal of both sides to enter into negotiations which forced the USA to finally make a choice after a full month of dithering.

I don't need to quote people and cite references over this - almost the entire nation was glued to the TV as it unfolded.

[arsenal]

I agree with everything that SG has said in response to KT. But SG, you didn't answer my question.

[lonelywombat]

No that is not the reality, by any stretch of the imagination. We supported the UK from the moment Argentina invaded till the end of the war. Publicly we tried to appear neutral, but we did everything possible to aid the UK in its fight with Argentina. You really should read something on the war, rather then shooting from the hip. No we did not win the war for you, but we did make sure it was a short war and had the UK lost the Hermes (The UK's only heavy aircraft carrier--kept well out to sea to protect her) we would have responded with one of our own carriers, if asked, as the Invincible did not have the air power to do it alone. Get a book and find out one of these things is wrong and give me the citation, other wise keep your hatred of America separate from your faulty use of facts.

I seem to have heard stories about the 1917/1918 and the 1941/1945 wars It still does not appeal to me to have to read it again.

Yes, we followed the war in Australia, as closely as the UK did.

Sorry Arsenal, the reason I didn't answer your question was that I was so busy reading KT's contribution I didn't see your post above it.

Yes, I do believe it was a shocking waste of lives because it achieved nothing at the end of the day except to throw away the lives of around 500* British servicemen and Falkland islanders (with another several hundred wounded) over an unimportant and insignificant piece of land thousands of miles away, housing 1800 people and 400,000 sheep.

All it did was to allow Thatcher to grandstand on the international stage - at the point of the Argentinian surrender, who can forget her out in front of the TV cameras in the middle of Downing Street exclaiming "Rejoice! Rejoice!" like some kind of demented Queen Boadicea.
It was also the defining issue in her re-election in 1983, thus allowing her to continue her pernicious assault on working-class people (the very type of people whose lives she threw away) - an agenda which spawned one of the most long-lasting and violent industrial strikes in British history, and allowed her to introduce a regressive Poll Tax by which a multi-millionaire paid the same local tax as a roadsweeper, and led to riots in the streets.

Now, you cite the defeat and removal of the Argentinian junta as a good thing - and that's no doubt correct - but it was not a war aim, it was a consequence. Wars to effect regime change are illegal of course (I better not mention Iraq or I'll have KT on my back again).

So when I look back on it and consider the very limited (if any) gain for the UK set against the loss of 500* lives, yes I do consider it a shocking waste of lives.

:occasion9:

* Figure of 500 includes c.260 British killed in conflict and subsequent suicides of c.250 traumatised British veterans. Argentinian casualties were much higher.

[Liamog]

as with all disputed Islands no nation is totally convinced by their own claim. If they were they could go to one of the many international courts. But they don't.

International arbitration was offered by both international bodies and the US before any lives were lost. Thatcher, refused. 'The Falklands' were not for negotiation. Conflict resolution wasn't Maggie's style. Brut force and bullying were.

Reality is Thatcher needed a war, a blood victory, to prop up her position at home. And she sent 1000's of people to their deaths to pursue her 'disputed' claim and conveniently prop up her failing regime. "A shocking waste of lives." Really, I do think so!

In fact this was also a criminal waste of lives as seen by the cold blooded revenge attack she ordered on the non-combatant hospital ship the Belgrano.

I'm no fan of the tyrants who cause unecessary suffering and have a callous disregard for human life; Argentinian or British.

BTW the official IOS designation for the islands remains 'The Falklands (Malvenas)'. It appears that 'international bodies' do not see this dispute as resolved! A waste of lives indeed!

[Khor tose]

I do not have a hatred of America - spare me the knee-jerk reaction please.

I don't need to quote people and cite references over this - almost the entire nation was glued to the TV as it unfolded.

Another way of saying you are just blowing wind and you do not have any facts. What you have is television and newpaper reports from 1982 and you have not bothered to read or learn anything else since then. It is a shame really that some people quit learning when they get old. Oh well, I guess it is too much for you to understand that since 30 years have past that there is now thousands of documents that are now declassified and the real story is different then your "I saw it on television" understanding. What is truly sad is that the BBC has done an outstanding job of updating this story, but you have missed that too and gee whiz that was on television.

[arsenal]

SG: I don't agree with your any of your last post but I respect your opinion so we'll just agree to disagree. Gibralter and Hong Kong would have gone next

Liamog: We offered a ceasefire after the Belgrano was sunk. It was not a hospital ship, it was a light cruiser. That is a particularly idiotic thing to say. Where are you from? It was sunk on the advice of her admirals.

It is up the the nations themselves to set out their case and they should do so prior to an invasion, not after.

[Liamog]

Liamog: Where are you from?

Why? Is my place of birth or residence relevent?

KT, I find it exceeding strange that rather allowing me to give my own thoughts and opinions (which are every bit as valid as the next person's), you'd prefer it if I regurgitated the opinions of others.

What's that about :dontknow:

[Khor tose]

KT, I find it exceeding strange that rather allowing me to give my own thoughts and opinions (which are every bit as valid as the next person's), you'd prefer it if I regurgitated the opinions of others.

What's that about :dontknow:

First off that is a nice reply so it deserves a nice answer. I felt you were slamming America and making fun of my defense of America's position during the war.
America really did help and most Americans I know also followed the events very closely in the USA. Not that it matters, but my degree is in history and my fascination is Military History so I was just trying to set the record straight and all the things I said are true and well documented. We were in a really tough position, but when the chips were down we were on the UK's side from the start. The only time that I know of that the US has ever failed to back the UK sine the 1900's has been over the Suez canal of 1956, and the alliance has been mutual on the UK's part. In fact, I wish you hadn't backed us up in Iraq, but that is another story.

[arsenal]

Liamog: Simply because I am curious where you got the notion the General Belgrano was a hospital ship. Many criticised Thatcher for its sinking but none suggested it was anything other than an arned warship. Except you,.

Arsenal has a point - the General Belgrano/USS Phoenix was NOT a hospital ship, it was a 42yo former American heavy cruiser and Pearl Harbour survivor, due to be taken out of service and turned into a floating museum.

It was NOT carrying exocet missiles as the British Government had claimed, and was sailing away from the British task force - as the British well knew as it had been tracked for 30 hours by the British submarine HMS Conqueror before the attack. .

Immediately after the Belgrano had been attacked by HMS Conqueror it was unclear whether it had actually been sunk or just crippled, so the next day Conqueror returned to the scene under full attack orders and ready to take further action. The Belgrano had indeed been sunk and all that was observed in the area was a hospital ship and one of the 2 destroyers that had been accompanying the Belgrano at the time of the attack, and was now searching for survivors.

Perhaps this is where Liamog's recollection of a hospital ship comes into it :dontknow:

[Liamog]

Liamog: Simply because I am curious where you got the notion the General Belgrano was a hospital ship. Many criticised Thatcher for its sinking but none suggested it was anything other than an arned warship. Except you,.

It was my recollection from events at the time, based on UK news and press reports - obviously I have got that bit wrong. From reading the wiki reports now I think I might have read the reports (at the time) that the Belgrano was carrying a 1000 Agentinian troops. Apparently this wasn't so.

The ship was outside the British imposed exclusion zone around the islands and not on course to enter the zone. Thatcher had it sunk, not for the threat it posed, but as an act of revenge for the earlier sinking of a British ship. That is what I find most disgusting - the vicious disregard for human life.

[ceejay]

Whatever the reason for the sinking of the Belgrano, it was not as an act of revenge for the earlier sinking of a British ship. The first such sinking (HMS Sheffield) happened 2 days after the sinking of the Belgrano.

[Liamog]

Whatever the reason for the sinking of the Belgrano, it was not as an act of revenge for the earlier sinking of a British ship. The first such sinking (HMS Sheffield) happened 2 days after the sinking of the Belgrano.

Yip. Seems my memory is not what it used to be. I need to start using google before I post ;)

UK/GB/Scotland political knockabout moved from Gay Romeo thread on GT forum STARTS HERE:


...Always thought it was the Scotts who were supposed to be the cheapos....

Since you clearly can't even spell, I guess the chances of you being able to justify your "thought"with any sort of evidence are somewhat less than zero.

:occasion9:

[joe552]

SG, I think a couple of his boyfrieds were called Scott - that's what he means. :sign5:

[kjun12]

Beat me, hurt me, fuck me and make me write bad checks for I am so sorry that I misspelled Scots as Scotts. But they are still referred to tight wads (at least in the USA). :gy:

[joe552]

bad checks? cheques, surely? :occasion9:

[kjun12]

bad checks? cheques, surely? :occasion9:
Sadly, You Brits had never could handle language very well. Thankfully, we, citizens of the USA, developed the rudimentary English language into a wonderful method of communication and improved the grammar, pronunciation, and spelling greatly. :box1:

[joe552]

You obviously haven't noticed that my location is given as Dublin, Ireland, so I'm not actually British. :occasion9:

But I applaud all you Americans have done to improve the language - long may it continue. :notworthy:

[kjun12]

But, Joe, your are all British subjects. Are you not? :love4:

[joe552]

Not since independence in 1922 (for 26 out of 32 counties). Ireland became a republic in 1949. Now we are subjects of Europe (and the German bankers) but that's a different story.

Ha ha well Jkun12 if you think you've excelled at English you certainly haven't mastered geography and politics yet as people have been killed for saying something similar to your (crazily inaccurate) comments here - and I mean literally ! How ever just to confuse you even more ( as I know it's hard for some of you Yanks to keep up re all of this sometimes) I to am from the island of Ireland but in my regard you are absolutely correct - but are about 100 miles out geographically! :-) So maybe you can go look up a map and CHEQUE :-) that all out and then you'll get it :-)

Beat me, hurt me, fuck me and make me write bad checks for I am so sorry that I misspelled Scots as Scotts. But they are still referred to tight wads (at least in the USA). :gy:

I won't do any of those things, I'll stick to pointing out that the sum total of "evidence" you offer to back up your insult is that you have heard other people say it.

Which begs the question: "Is Kjun12 a man or a parrot?"


And as for you thinking Dublin is in Britain or that the inhabitants of the Irish Republic are British subjects - that just places you intellectually somewhere between George W Bush and Mitt Romney

[kjun12]

"Is Kjun12 a man or a parrot?"
Alas, He is neither. He is a queer, faggot, homo as you are.

Where did you get the idea that I thought Dublin was in England?

Oh dear, I really would stop digging if I were you kjun12, this isn't going to end well for you at any level I'm guessing :)

[kjun12]

Well, you do present a good case. It is most difficult to overcome the collective intellect of you subjects of the British Empire.

Ok so once more for the hard of hearing then - JOE IS NOT A BRITISH SUBJECT - I'm assuming you do actually get that and just perhaps think its some sort of hilarious wind up, if so, gotta say so not working, you're just coming across being a bit thick for not realising your first probably genuine mistake and then not bowing out gracefully when it was pointed out to you - but hey I'll let Joe speak for himself, seeing as how he's from a different country to me and all it's the least I can do to assist my countries foreign relations efforts :-)

....Where did you get the idea that I thought Dublin was in England?

I didn't say you thought Dublin was in England, by which I presume you mean Great Britain - what I said was:


...And as for you thinking Dublin is in Britain or that the inhabitants of the Irish Republic are British subjects...

And as to where i got it from:


You obviously haven't noticed that my location is given as Dublin, Ireland, so I'm not actually British...


But, Joe, your are all British subjects...

Taxi for kjun12!

[kjun12]

I didn't say you thought Dublin was in England, by which I presume you mean Great Britain
His Excellency, please explain for me the difference between Britian and England.

...His Excellency, please explain for me the difference between Britian and England.

To put it very generally and simply - England is politically but half of Great Britain (as originally created in the Acts of Union in 1707). The other half is, of course, Scotland. Therefore England is not Great Britain any more than Scotland is Great Britain.

No, I haven't forgotten Wales - it was not party to the Acts, and I haven't forgotten Northern Ireland which is not part of Great Britain, but is rather part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & NI

There is of course a lot more to it - I'm sure Wiki will tell you all you need to know, and plenty more you don't.

[egel]

Kjun12
Just to help you out a little.

Joe 553 comes from Ireland. He is Irish. He is not British.
Nirish Guy comes from Northern Ireland. He is Irish or British.
scottish-guy (note the double t) comes from Scotland. He is a Scot (note the one t). He is British (for the moment).
I come from England. I am British...and will stay that way.

All these Countries are in Europe.
Only Ireland uses the Euro.
The rest have their own currencies.

Im not surprised you cannot keep up!

[joe552]

Can't wait for NIrish Guy's response to this :occasion9: The word Irish in his user name may give a hint. Northern Ireland is not part of Britain, as scottish-guy pointed out alread. It is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[egel]

Edited!
Is it right now?!

[joe552]

I'll leave it to him to comment.

I my dears simply refuse to be labelled ! Sniff ! ( as he throws his pink sequinned scarf over his left shoulder and struts away to attend to his potted plants ) :-) lol

ha ha no "for the record" I really am past caring and tend not to lose to much sleep over such matters anymore in life and my answer fairly much depends on who I'm talking to, where I am, if there's free Guinness being offered and several other key factors involved. So, if I'm at home ( or anywhere in Europe usually) I'm simply "Northern Irish" and / or "British" depending on the conversation, however if I'm in Thailand etc I do tend to just say Irish without adding the Northern part as over many years it's become obvious that people there ( and in many places) have ABSOLUTELY no idea of the difference or even where Ireland North OR South even IS !!! as according to most Thai's I'm from Iceland anyway ! :-) and I generally haven't the will or energy to bother explaining unless they ask - and even then it's the bare minimum explanation from me - the other time I'm "irish" is of course should I happen to be in New York or the likes in an Irish bar and the Guinness is flowing and everyone's insisting on buying then "irishman" a pint - yes you're got it in one - yes I would sell my Birthright for a pint of Guinness ! - Oh and on the 12th of July I am of course an Ulsterman - but not in a give a shit way as the only parades I'm interested in is the Pride variety ! :-) But when all's said and done and seriously I'm simply Northern Irish as that's where I'm from - it's not rocket science and people ( not on the board) who insist on over politicising the point need to get a life in my opinion - but it could be worse as the one thing us Northern Irish, Irish and Scot's do all agree on is......thank GOD we're just not English ! lol ( English people reading this I AM jesting, honestly ! :-)

[joe552]

I could never understand how the boys know Iceland but not Ireland, 'cos I get the same reaction? Maybe it's just easier to say, and they have no idea where either place is? :dontknow:

yeah I think that's probably it - plus we irish men :-) always tell them how cold our country is compared to Thailand, where on they usually ask me "does it snow there" to which i say "sometimes" and they put two and two together and come up with Iceland - which I now no longer bother correcting them on and in fact sometimes I have long meaningful conversations with them about the beautiful reindeers and where Santa lives and all sorts which passes the time admirably lol - and anyway Joe you don't count as you're just from Southern Iceland whereas I'm from Northern Iceland where it's MUCH colder so I obviously win ! :-p

Talking of cold and snow - I witnessed a friend of mine (F) having the following conversation with a Thai bar boy (TBB):

F: Yes its very cold in Scotland and we often have snow
TBB: Snow? Really? Very good. I never see snow.
F: Well, we have plenty of it.
TBB: Ok, next time you come back Thailand you bring snow for me.
F: I can not bring snow with me - it would melt on the way.
TBB: Put it in a box.



:banghead:

His Excellency, please explain for me the difference between Britian and England.Are you to busy looking after your vast real estate empire to use Wikipedia or is it Scottish leg you are pulling?

[Marsilius]

scottish-guy (note the double t) comes from Scotland. He is a Scot (note the one t). He is British (for the moment).

Actually, regardless of the referendum on Scottish independence, scottish-guy will always be British. That's because "Great Britain" is a geographical - not a political - entity to which Scotland will always physically belong. [The "Great", by the way, is also geographical, indicating the larger land-mass home of the Britons as opposed to the smaller one of Britanny in France.]

What scottish-guy (and all the other inhabitants of the island if Great Britain) might cease to be post-referendum could only be described as United Kingdom-ish.

[joe552]

that's exactly my understanding of the situation as well.

Marsilius, geographically perhaps - but politically and legally that will not be the case.

If things go the right way and Scotland becomes independent again, my nationality will officially be Scottish - it will say so on my Passport issued by the Kingdom of Scotland, and if it comes to pass - that will be the proudest day of my life.

Nobody would seriously argue that the inhabitants of Norway and Sweden will always be Scandanavians rather than Norwegians and Swedes because they will always inhabit the peninsula of Scandanavia!

[Marsilius]

I would argue exactly that. You are confusing a geographical term that predates the formation of either the English or the Scottish kingdoms with political terms.

I'm not confusing anything - I realise completely that "Great Britain" has a geographical meaning and a separate political meaning - I have said exactly that several times!! Jesus H - just look at the first line of my last post!


Marsilius, geographically perhaps - but politically and legally that will not be the case..

You on the other hand seem fixated on the geographical entity and you completely ignore the political one!!

[Marsilius]

There is no political meaning to the simple term "Great Britain". We both live (for now) in The United Kingdom of "Great Britain" [a place] and "Northern Ireland" [another place]. The accepted abbreviated form of the political entity is the UK, not GB.

RUBBISH!

There has to be a political entity - parcels of land do not make international treaties.

The political entity of Great Britain was formed by the Acts of Union between England and Scotland in 1707.

The political entity of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was formed by the Act of Union of 1801.

The current political entity of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was formed after the Irish War of Independence which ended in 1921 with most of Ireland seceding from the Union.

Just think about what you are saying - that there is no political entity of Great Britain - if that's the case the Westminister Government is illegitimate, as is every law in the land, and any of the "home countries" could just walk away from the Union - as they would be part of a "United Kingdom" of a non-existent and invalid "Great Britain".

You really need to think this one through and stop reading snippets from Wikipedia :sign5:

[Marsilius]

The "United Kngdom" makes treaties. It is a state that includes the geographical entity of Great Britain (one of the British Isles).

In 1474, a commission sitting in Edinburgh to negotiate a marriage between the Scottish king and a daughter of the king of England - when England and Scotland were sovereign foreign countries to each other - proclaimed that closer family ties would promote peace and prosperity within "this Nobill Isle, callit Gret Britanee". in other words, GB was seen as a geographical and not a political term.

In 1604 James VI and I (note the two separate kingdoms, not a unified state) proclaimed himself, while king of those two completely separate kingdoms, "King of Great Britain" - i.e. The term GB meant the geographical land mass as a whole. No one thought that GB was a single unified political entity. It was just a personal accident that James ruled two separate kingdoms that happened, by chance, to encompass the complete land mass of Great Britain.

To return to the initial point, both you and I, scottish-guy, will, whatever the outcome of a Scottish independence vote, remain "British" because we were born on the island of Great Britain, just as, in the same sense, we will always be Europeans by geography even if our state or states were to pull out of the EU.

By the way, what I have actually been reading is "The use of the term 'Great Britain' in the middle ages" - the appendix to "The emergence of an idea: Europe" by Professor Denys Hay (ironically enough, of the University of Edinburgh). The late professor confirms the points that I have made.

PS

From Collins English Dictionary:

Great Brit-ain n. the largest island in Europe and in the British Isles, separated from the continent of W. Europe by the English Channel and the North Sea; consists of England, Scotland, and Wales; forms, with Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is divided geologically along a line between the Tees and the Exe, the rocks to the north and west being generally old and resistant, constituting mountains and upland, the rocks to the south and east being younger, forming plains and low hills. It has an indented coastline and several groups of islands. Area: 229,523 sq. km. (88,619 sq. miles). See also United Kingdom.

United Kingdom n. a kingdom of NW Europe, consisting chiefly of the island of Great Britain, together with Northern Ireland. See also Great Britain.

[Liamog]

There is no political meaning to the simple term "Great Britain". We both live (for now) in The United Kingdom of "Great Britain" [a place] and "Northern Ireland" [another place].

'Northern Ireland' did not exist until it was created by an Act of the UK Parliment in 1920/1921. Therefore by your definition Marsilius, it is a 'place' that suddenly appeared where none was before. Who said you can't create matter!

Obviously Ireland has long had a 'north' or 'northern' part (and a south, east and west). The 'north' of Ireland is a place that has existed for as long as Ireland has - although its actual geographic space could be defined any number of ways. The 'north' could refer to the same space as the political entity 'Northern Ireland'. It could be larger and include the other 'Ulster' counties of Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan. It could be smaller and include only the north most counties of Donegal, Derry, Antrim and (maybe) Tyrone. Or it could include everything in the island of Ireland that lies north of some imaginary Irish equatorial line.

Sorry Marsilius but whatever your political views on the legitimacy or not of 'Northern Ireland' as a state/statelet/province/region it is very definitely a political creation and therefore only has 'political meaning'. It is also used to refer to a defined geographic 'place' but this only because a political act, the Governement of Ireland Act (1920) defined it as that 'place'. This 'place' (i.e. the six north-east counties of Ireland) would never have been defined as a distinct 'place' before that act.

Not to confuse things but......any non-political definition of the 'northern Ireland' would surely have to included the most northerly county of Ireland, Donegal, which is of course in the South! Simple!

[Marsilius]

Of course northern Ireland existed before the 1920s - as did southern Ireland, central Ireland, eastern Ireland and western Ireland. It had to be called something after partition - and surely Nationalists would prefer the mere capitalisation of the geographical term to Northern Ireland (states/provinces have names with a capital initial letter) which at least suggests its links with the rest of the island rather than, pace Carson or Rev. Paisley, labelling it as "Ulster"?

The current politically defined state is The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - which happens to be that of Great Britain (the large island encompassing England, Scotland and Wales) and the northern part if the Irish island that remained in the UK after partition (and which, as it has to be called something, has been labelled for administrative purposes "Northern Ireland").

...In 1604 James VI and I (note the two separate kingdoms, not a unified state) proclaimed himself, while king of those two completely separate kingdoms, "King of Great Britain" .

Actually he proclaimed himself "King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc.

However, This was a self proclamation - an excercise in self-styling.

James was only ever coronated as King of Scots (1556) and King of England, France and Ireland (1603) - never of Great Britain, because although he united the Crowns in 1603, Scotland and England were separate and independent Kingdoms until the political state of Great Britain was created by the Act of Union of 1707.

[Marsilius]

Please quote accurately - even with obsolete punctuation styles - if you are going to use quotation marks: "King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith &c." [Hay, op. cit., p.128]. I had omitted the rest of the regnal title because it was irrelevant to our discussion, but there you are.

By your own admission, the United Kingdom of Great Britain ceased to exist as a polity in 1801 when it was replaced by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. That, in turn, ceased to exist in the 1920s when it was superseded by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There has not, therefore, been a United Kingdom of Great Britain since 1801, though even when it did exist (1707-1801) it was, of course, a polity and not a place.

Please address your idiosyncratic definition of "Great Britain" to Mr Collins and his esteemed dictionary if you wish to deny that you were born in the island of Great Britain and hence will always - regardless of any political rearrangements that may be made - be British as well as Scottish.

[christianpfc]

Jesus H - just look at the first line of my last post!
Jesus H? What is that?

you were born in the island of Great Britain and hence will always - regardless of any political rearrangements that may be made - be British as well as Scottish.
Where you are born has nothing to do with your nationality or racial background (my opinion, yours may vary). You can be born in Scotland and be Chinese. However if scottish-guy's mother and father are Scottish, then he is Scottish as well.

[Liamog]

Of course northern Ireland existed before the 1920s.

Mmmmm it seems you now agree with my point, northern Ireland (a place) existed before 1921, Northern Ireland (a political creation) did not.



Nationalists would prefer the mere capitalisation of the geographical term to Northern Ireland .......which at least suggests its links with the rest of the island rather than,..... labelling it as "Ulster"?

As 'Ulster' is one of the historical four 'Provinces' of Ireland I think either term links it to Ireland. Most 'nationalists' would in fact avoid using the term 'Northern Ireland' at all; 'the north' or 'north of Ireland' would more often be used (or for those who believe the state should not be recognised all - 'the six counties' or even 'the occupied six counties').

The term Ulster would be widely used by nationalists all over Ireland to refer to the (nine county) historical province. Sports in Ireland, for example, are often organised on a provincial basis and not just for Gealige games. The 'Ulster' Rugby team has players from all nine counties i.e. from 'Northern Ireland' and the Republic of Ireland. Ulster boxers can come from Donegal, Cavan or Monaghan (all in the Republic of Ireland) as well as Antrim and Down (in 'Northern Ireland'). Derry City Football Club (winners of Sundays League of Ireland Cup :ura1: ) choose to play their soccer in the Republic of Ireland based league.


Disclaimer: Please be aware no northern Irish / Northern Irish / Irish / Ulster persons were hurt in the making of this post. :wav:

Please quote accurately - even with obsolete punctuation styles - if you are going to use quotation marks: "King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith &c." [Hay, op. cit., p.128]. I had omitted the rest of the regnal title because it was irrelevant to our discussion, but there you are.

OMFG - You're reduced to criticising my punctuation now - I missed out a comma after "France" - let me quickly correct that in case you have a stroke.

I really can't follow your argument that because the word "Ireland" was added to "Great Britain" in 1801, then changed to "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" in the 1920's, that Great Britain ceased to exist as an entity after 1801 - that just doesn't make any sense to me. Great Britain still exists today - within the UK - it's in the bloody title!!

Further. I have never knowingly used the term United Kingdom of Great Britain - I do not believe it to be correct. I believe the correct term after 1707 was simply "Kingdom of Great Britain" - but I acknowledge that United Kingdom is commonly used when referring to the Kingdom of Great Britain between 1707 and 1801 (I would say erroneously).

Kingdom of Great Britain = Union of Scotland and England ONLY (note that "England" in this case incorporated Wales)

United Kingdom (currently) = Union of Great Britain + N Ireland.

Rump UK (post possible Scottish Independence) will = Union of England, Wales, N Ireland

That's all there is to it :violent1:

Please feel free to advise me of any misplaced hyphens or omission of semi-colons.

[Marsilius]

Good to see you rewriting the dictionary.

Bottom line is that "Great Britain" is a purely geographical term. It does not exist as a polity and has not since 1801.

You will, as I keep on explaining - and that was the original issue - always be British (as well as Scottish) by virtue of the Great British geographical land mass on which you were born.

By the way, had you not, irrelevantly, quibbled about the extra bits of the regnal title, I wouldn't have bothered picking you up on your technical inaccuracy either!

[Liamog]

This is getting Mar sillious by the moment :glasses7:

... had you not, irrelevantly, quibbled about the extra bits of the regnal title, I wouldn't have bothered picking you up on your technical inaccuracy either!

It wasn't an irrelevant quibble - the very significant point I was making was that James VI & I took a self-styled regnal title rather than a strictly accurate one - as indicated by the inclusion of France (comma) and Ireland - since in 1604 he was clearly King of neither.

Nor was he "King of Great Britain" either (as he proclaimed himself) - all he was ever crowned was King of Scots (note: not Scotland) and King of England.

George I was, I believe, the first monarch to be crowned "King of Great Britain....." rather than to simply proclaim himself to be so.

You can huff and puff all you like about me "always being British" even post-independence.
If the happy day ever arrives that it says Kingdom of Scotland - R├мoghachd na h-Alba- on my passport and designates my Nationality as Scottish, that'll do for me. :occasion9:

And I'm not responding any further - probably :sign5:

[joe552]

If only we'd been colonised by the Scots rather than the British :party

It has been mischievously suggested to me that a possible name (and acronym) for the territory left after Scottish independence might be:

Former United Kingdom States.

:occasion9:

[joe552]

not States surely? only one considering leaving the UK

[Either way, the acronym works!]

[cottmann]

If only we'd been colonised by the Scots rather than the British :party

I thought the plantations/colonization of Ulster by Scots Presbyterians was the cause of most of the recent unpleasantness in NI?

Of course, the Scots were Irish emigrants in the first place, mostly from Dal Riata in the north, as Scotia Major used to be Ireland, and Scotia Minor the modern Scotland, aka Alba and Caledonia.

It's all rather confusing.

... It's all rather confusing.

Clearly.

Your post is also rather misleading - the use of the term "Scots" to describe those who came from Ireland and settled predominantly around the West coast of Pictland is accurate for that time, but it does not have the same meaning as the term "Scots" today, which encompasses the entire population of the country - most of whom have no Irish ancestry whatsoever.

I don't want to get deeply into a discussion of NIrish politics because there are others here who will know far more about it but it seems to me that it took two sides to make what was almost a civil war in NIreland, that to blame it all on the Ulster protestants is naive to say the least, and that NIreland has already emerged from that dark period in its history.

:occasion9:

[Liamog]

not States surely? only one considering leaving the UK

Mmmm. Joe, have you told Mess'rs Adams and Mc Guinness? And indeed Mr Durkin.

The combined nationalist / republican vote in the north is not far off 50% as it stands and it's growing. UK policy (from the Anglo-Irish Agreement) is that the UK will accept the wishes of the majority in Northern Ireland should they opt to join an all-Ireland.

Not saying that it'll be straight forward like but it is being actively 'considered' by quite a few of your country men (and mine :tongue3: ).

[cottmann]

...Your post is also rather misleading...

It was the confusion between ethnicity and nationality to which I was referring. I regret that I did not explain the irony in my response.

Ah, liamog - don't fall for the UK Unionist double-speak.

Yes, they say they will abide by any majority decision - but they will fight tooth and nail to deny the means of establishing the wishes of the electorate, as will other players in NIrish politics.

The UK Govt will deny a referendum until the nationalist parties win a majority in an election for the Northern Ireland Assembly specifically on the back of a referendum ticket. In the case of the Scottish Parliament, they even went so far as to fix the electoral system so that the Scottish National Party could never achieve a majority - except, against all the odds, in 2011 they DID!

Next, the UK Govt (and the Unionist parties - even though they lost that Election) will seek to control the timing, the question, the franchise, and the funding rules.

In Scotland we are fortunate in having a First Minister who played them beautifully.

[joe552]

Indeed, Liamog, you're correct - my apologies. I have to agree with scottish-guy's assessment above.

[Liamog]

Indeed, indeed Scottish-guy & Joe. We have all had some experience of their shenanigans before. :scratch: It will certainly not be straightforward.

Talking of shenanigans, and as Irishmen, you may be interested in this latest dollop of Unionist shite :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20475919

[Liamog]

Talking of shenanigans, and as Irishmen, you may be interested in this latest dollop of Unionist shite :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20475919

I think the first minister is being a little disingenuous. I wonder would his deputy first minister agree? Mmm probably not.
Makes me wonder what audience Peter is addressing here. LetтАЩs face it, Peter may not always know where his wife is but he really isnтАЩt that daft.

In the same vein I was surprised to read an article in the Guardian newspaper just this week about the 'trend' towards independence movements in Europe. Scotland was mentioned as the 'breakup' issue for the UK, as was the Basque region and Catalonia for Spain. Even Nagorno-Karabakh got a mention.
No mention at all of the north of Ireland however! An interesting oversight from the voice of the UK liberal middle class I thought.

I donтАЩt think the issue has been forgotten about in Ireland thoughтАжтАж..

[ceejay]

Speaking as an Englishman, but only for myself, I have always felt that it is a mistake to see dissolution of the UK in terms of winners and losers. Yes, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should have referenda on separation on whatever terms they see fit, although the English have a right to refuse, for example, to participate in a common currency except on terms acceptable to us. Then we can all get on with basing our relationships on our deep and substantial common interests, rather than what drives us apart. In short, a partnership of mutual interest, with each country defining it's own interests in its own terms, rather than a resented and outdated Union. I think we would all be better off.

The Pound Sterling is a fully convertable currency - no country can be prevented from using it if that is what they wish to do. From 1922 Eire stuck a new wrapper on it and used the ┬г sterling for about 60 years.

The real issue is not the currency, but who acts as the "lender of last resort" and the notion that the Bank of England would rather see Scotland march off with around 10% of all UK assets (including the Bank of England's assets) and around 90% of the Oil asset - which would wreak havoc with the credit rating of the rump UK - rather than come to an agreement which suits all parties, is fanciful.

Yes, agreements would have to be reached but realpolitik would ensure that a way is found which suited both sides.

Post all your political knockabout here:

:box1: :duel: :violent1: :kap:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: Mon 22 Oct, 2012 1:14 pm


http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-politics/6007-davidsons-attack-on-scotland-labeled-her-qmitt-romney-moment

I think they should be hugging each other.

:sign5:

Davidson is correct in so far as there is abroad in Scotland a stifling sense of entitlement and a disinclination to go against the staus quo, but if she were to read Scottish Review she would realise the real culprits frequent the clubs and quangos of the Edinburgh establishment, not bus stops waiting to use their free passes.