OK, who nicked Scotland?
- Thread starter Silvereye
- Start date
Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
Believe me, I have that argument every time the world cup, commonwealth games, ad naueseum come around. I suspect they just want extra teams so they have more chance to win. Fielding a team for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is four chances, but a UK team is only one...
What, it will be a miracle, and cause for national celebration, if Scotland ever progress beyond the group stages of any football tournament. In England theres no doubt a public enquiry if they do not reach the quater-finals.
The UK does not field a combined team. It is Great Britain that fields the team.
Besides, you should really be asking why an Englishman is defending the reasoning of having Scotland as a seperate location on the player-finder.
The simple answer is it is probably easier and no doubt almost as quick to head over to Boston and play Obsidian, or quicker to play EP in Dublin. It is certainly easier to get to Belgium (overnight ferry) than it is to get to Derby at about a six-or-seven hour drive, providing I can avoid the A1 around Newcastle and the M62 at rush-hour....
From Derby, you can probably get to any other opponent listed in England within an hour or two baring major problems.
The UK does not field a combined team. It is Great Britain that fields the team.
Besides, you should really be asking why an Englishman is defending the reasoning of having Scotland as a seperate location on the player-finder.
The simple answer is it is probably easier and no doubt almost as quick to head over to Boston and play Obsidian, or quicker to play EP in Dublin. It is certainly easier to get to Belgium (overnight ferry) than it is to get to Derby at about a six-or-seven hour drive, providing I can avoid the A1 around Newcastle and the M62 at rush-hour....
From Derby, you can probably get to any other opponent listed in England within an hour or two baring major problems.
Lord David the Denied said:
The Commonwealth Games is a special case, due to how the Commonwealth is put together. If you grouped the UK, you'd pretty much have to group all the Commonwealth Countries under a single banner. As regards FIFA - if you think separating the UK out gives more opportunities to win you clearly don't follow football
The United Kingdom isn't a country per se, it is a collection of countries unified under joint administration and sovereignty, and is somewhat different in this respect compared to most world nations.
Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
frobisher said:
No, these are the things that make a country. The UK is a sovereign state. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are not. No matter how you try to wrap it up, those are the facts.
Silvereye said:
It took me more than four hours to get to Margate a few weeks ago when I visited a friend down there. It's two hours to Oxford, which is a trip of roughly 100 miles. Getting into Nottingham, a trip of only 13 miles, takes nearly an hour for me. This is largely because I don't have a car, and I could do it faster if I did, but the claim that anywhere in England is within easy reach of me is not valid.
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
Hash said:
I care because I don't like fact being called falsehood...
No it was DEFINITELY 70000 years ago, we were homo sapiens at that stage and there was only one supervolcanic eruption at that time, Toba in Indonesia.
from Wikipedia
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
Silvereye said:
well it was only in use for 20 years as opposed to what 300 for Hadrian's, so that's fairly temporary!
Wing Commander
Mongoose
The ancient Scots tribes loved the wall when it was built, they had far less too travel for their building supplies. For them, it was like having a new B&Q open up locally!
emperorpenguin said:
Your ability to quote Wikipedia is impressive, very impressive...however you are obviously wrong, L Ron Hubbard said so!
P.S. You do realise I was joking and quoting Scientology rubbish yes? Besides, you are not quoting "fact" but "theory", there are other respected theories regarding the evolution of the human race that disagree with Ambrose. It is not unscientific to maintain a healthy skepticism when considering such theories given the available evidence is often subject to interpretation - this branch of science is anything but static!
frobisher said:
According to our local registry office, English, Scottish, welsh, etc. are not legal definitions of nationality, e.g. for the purposes of weddings, etc. Of course, in the crazy Blairite vision of the UK, who knows whats correct and whats not.
Anyway one the reasons the list got so confused was at least one member insisting that they lived in Scotland, Europe rather than Scotland, UK. Even Blair hasn't pulled that one of (yet....).
Antonine Wall was not built to be temporary, but its abandonment was a result of a change in policy (I suspect the Romans found it too nippy under their leather skirts :shock: ) Same with trans-Rhine province (name?) and Dacia (across the Danube).
Origin of the Celts is a bit of a disputed issue. While I have great respect for the BBC on the whole, I would not take any TV programme as the last word when it comes to History....The Britons of old i.e. Wales (Welsh is derived from a Saxon word for "foriegner"), Cornwall, southern Scotland replaced/intermixed with previous populations. As did the Scots when they decided annihilating the native Picts was a bit boring.
There we are, my view on everything and nothing
philogara said:
All the players from Scotland in the list were listed under EUR - Scotland. It made us easier to find as we did not have to trawl through the England enteries. I even changed it early on in the lists creation as someone back then decided where we best belonged. There will be a historical thread about it from way back. We were quite happy being seperate for about a dozen or so pages, then we randomly get moved, without being asked.....
Wulf has already moved himself back and I am going to too. I was just wondering if there was a better way to organise the list. Hence a previous post.
lastbesthope
Mongoose
Tredrick said:
It's a little wrong in that geographically I'm in the 'Empire' area, but I am a Scot expat and still very much proud of my skirt, however listing myself as such would be uselss in a tool supposed to help in finding people geographically close to you.
Lord David the Denied said:
The United Kingdom is NOT a country, it might be a nation, it is obviously a kingdom(or perhaps a collection thereof) but it is not a country, it is made up of many countries. I'm with frobisher on this one it seems.
LBH
lastbesthope said:
I'd agree the component countries should be listed seperately, but I can see that a "UK" prefix makes it easier for people to view them as a group - some people live close enough to a border to not mind a trip across it (especially as they're not real "borders" as other countries would have between them) - the only real difference is the language barrier in certain parts
I don't particularly care what prefix gets used, but it is very useful grouping England,Scotland,Wales and N.Ireland together in the list.
lastbesthope
Mongoose
People should be, and currently are, able to enter thenir location as they see fit. Listing individual countries within the UK is a glaringly obvious and sensible idea. Whether they are listed as components of Europe or as the UK, or even the UK within Europe matters little really, yes it will be slightly easier to search but at most you only need to look in 2 or 3 areas of the list anyway.
PErsonally I'm amazed it's as organised as it is, but then that is part of the human condition.
LBH
PErsonally I'm amazed it's as organised as it is, but then that is part of the human condition.
LBH
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
.Hash said:
As is my ability to use what I learned from studying archaeology and anthropology at uni, human evolution was always my favourite and best subject.
I'm not aware of scientology claiming that many supervolcanoes nearly wiped out humanity 7 million years ago :wink: I was correcting an error in chronology on your part by a factor of 100! 8)
No respected theory of human evolution says anything about humans being 7 million years old....
