U.K. is not a synonym of England

[laklak]

That's why we're electing Romney, he holds Harper's strings.

[Svartalf]

BTW, how often does Ottawa do things that go against the wishes of London?

[Jason]

I'm pretty sure we're servile to the USA and not England these days.

[Jason]

I'm pretty sure we're servile to the USA and not England these days. Although we did refuse to invade Iraq.

[laklak]

"Liberate". We "liberated" Iraq.

[Red Celt]

She rules from the throne of England. Derp.

Throne of England? WTF does that mean?

You speak English instead of Gaelic, as my Grandmother did, because you're a lickspittle for your English overlords.

Fuck-a-duck. Gaelic was spoken in the Highlands. Scottish was spoken in the Lowlands. Not because of lickspittleness, but because it was the language of the Lowlands. Left there by the Angles... who, believe it or not, didn't stop at Hadrian's Wall.

London, ENGLAND.

And? Who do you think chose that location? Scotland has its own capital.

Oh is that so? I suppose you make foreign policy and national trade agreements from there as well. No? Right. Pass another bylaw about cooking haggis after 8 PM in Glasgow and pretend you have self-determination.

Oh really? A haggis comment? Oh bravo, you enlightened little thing, you.
Why mention foreign policy and trade agreements, when you'd previously mentioned law? You know the difference, right? The Scottish legal system is separate to that of England and Wales. Always has been. And you threw that "non fact" in the mix for a reason for U.K. and England to be synonymous. Hey, don't blame me if you can't hit the dartboard.

That you are NOT a 'united kingdom', you are England. If Canada had its foreign policy made from Washington D.C., if Barack Obama was our head of state, if our Capitol was Washington D.C., I could not deny that we would be 'Americans'. My point? You're delusional.

You are uneducated and/or ignorant about the U.K., so you'll excuse me if I sidestep the whole "delusional" claim.

Is this you trying to troll?

[amused]

"Liberate". We "liberated" Iraq.

Correct, and now we're effecting an environmental cleanup operation there by getting rid of all that nasty oil they have underfoot. We're such humanitarians, it's almost like we're doing God's work there!

[Cormac]

and he did it from Egypt in complete ignorance of the people actually living there... althout "a" Ptolemy (Claudius Ptolemaeus) wrote a Geographica where he already called it Ἰουερνία'.

Plus, 'little' or 'lesser' Britain used to be a name for Brittany.

It id also the name for Wales, in Irish.

[Jason]

She rules from the throne of England. Derp.

Throne of England? WTF does that mean?

The Throne of England is the English term used to identify the throne of the King of England. The term can refer to very specific seating, as in King Edward's Chair, which has been used in the coronations of British monarchs for eight centuries. The term may also refer to the specific chair used only by the monarch at the State opening of Parliament for the delivery of the Speech from the Throne. In an abstract sense, the "Throne of England" also refers rhetorically to kingship[1] and to the monarchy itself.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throne_of_England

You speak English instead of Gaelic, as my Grandmother did, because you're a lickspittle for your English overlords.

Fuck-a-duck. Gaelic was spoken in the Highlands. Scottish was spoken in the Lowlands. Not because of lickspittleness, but because it was the language of the Lowlands. Left there by the Angles... who, believe it or not, didn't stop at Hadrian's Wall.

Indeed. The early Anglification of Scotland. Why you think this supports your argument, I have no idea.

Northumbrian Old English had been established in what is now southeastern Scotland as far as the River Forth by the seventh century, as the region was part of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Northumbria.[24] It remained largely confined to this area until the thirteenth century, continuing in common use while Gaelic was the language of the Scottish court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_language

London, ENGLAND.

And? Who do you think chose that location? Scotland has its own capital.

Indeed. As Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, and all the other provinces of Canada have theirs. That changes nothing about the fact that they are all part of Canada.

Oh is that so? I suppose you make foreign policy and national trade agreements from there as well. No? Right. Pass another bylaw about cooking haggis after 8 PM in Glasgow and pretend you have self-determination.

Oh really? A haggis comment? Oh bravo, you enlightened little thing, you.
Why mention foreign policy and trade agreements, when you'd previously mentioned law? You know the difference, right? The Scottish legal system is separate to that of England and Wales. Always has been. And you threw that "non fact" in the mix for a reason for U.K. and England to be synonymous. Hey, don't blame me if you can't hit the dartboard.

It was a touch of hyperbole which I imagined you'd be able to understand. Your Scottish government lacks the power of self-determination. The haggis bit was a jab at how you're allowed to make minor laws but nothing more.

That you are NOT a 'united kingdom', you are England. If Canada had its foreign policy made from Washington D.C., if Barack Obama was our head of state, if our Capitol was Washington D.C., I could not deny that we would be 'Americans'. My point? You're delusional.

You are uneducated and/or ignorant about the U.K., so you'll excuse me if I sidestep the whole "delusional" claim.

Is this you trying to troll?

[/quote]

And you think I'm the ignorant one.

[klr]

We're still waiting for some evidence for the British Isles being an "official" name ... as in official in what context?

There is frankly no such thing as an official, universally accepted name for any geographical or political construct. Even the ISO "standard" list is replete with examples of politicking, as much by omission as by choice of name:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1

[Cormac]

Geography cannot be divorced from politics.

When did the people in England, Wales, and Scotland begin to refer to themselves as British?

The name "The British Isles" is intended to mean that these islands are inhabited and owned by British people, and indeed, that it is the place of origin of British people. It is a declaration of or recognition of ownership.

That wasn't what Ptolemy was doing. He was labeling some islands. He had no interest in ownership. Your use of "British Isles" may well be what you're suggesting. History, however, predates you be a very long way. To (further) challenge what you said, it isn't "the place of origin of British people". These islands have seen a succession of invasions and settlement by people who wouldn't have claimed Britain as their origin. Indeed, the Bretagnes of Western France could make better claims as far as "Britishness" is concerned.

You're trying to apply current thinking onto history (for political reasons). I don't have anything else (that I haven't already offered) to dissuade you from doing so. Each to their own and all that.

I know that these islands have been populated by a sequence of emigrations and invasions.

My point is that even when Ptolemy referred to the islands by those names, he was doing sp on the basis of the name of the people he thought that lived there. This is a statement about political facts. He, of course, was wrong - understandably so.

The world of that time was not politically naive. We don't do anything in terms of Realpolitik today than they did then, except for the odd nod towards human rights. Consequently, it is nonsensical to say that I am applying politics of today onto the past.

But apart from that, at some point that name was adopted and began to be used by the state. This would have been a deliberate and political act of propaganda and a statement of political intent.

[Svartalf]

No "British Islands" (French version thereof) in the index of my 2009 mapbook. But there is in my 1964 mapbook's

[Red Celt]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throne_of_England

Very good. Now read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707. I mean, it happened 305 years ago, so it's understandable that such a "new" event hasn't reached your part of Canada, yet. The "throne of England" is an irrelevance, when the monarch also "sits on" the "throne of Scotland". So, why you thought you could ignore that fact... well, that's unknown to everyone apart from you.

Indeed. The early Anglification of Scotland. Why you think this supports your argument, I have no idea.

The "Anglification" of Scotland, which happened before Scotland existed with borders even remotely similar to the modern day country? For the love of all that is holy, if you're not trolling, at least do your best not to look so fucking stupid. The word "fuck" came from Scotland's Anglo language. Y'welcome.

Indeed. As Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, and all the other provinces of Canada have theirs. That changes nothing about the fact that they are all part of Canada.

OK. So which would you prefer, when people refer to you? A Nunavut (largest land mass), an Ontarian (largest population) or an Ottawan, seeing as how the location of the capital is of paramount importance to you? None of this British Columbian nonsense, you Nunavut/Ontarian/Ottawan that you are.

It was a touch of hyperbole which I imagined you'd be able to understand. Your Scottish government lacks the power of self-determination. The haggis bit was a jab at how you're allowed to make minor laws but nothing more.

No. It was a touch of bullshit. Scotland's laws are made in Scotland, where (unlike England and Wales) a verdict can be innocent, guilty or not proven. Foreign policies are the domain of the government in Westminster... which has nothing to do with the laws of Scotland. Because Scotland handles those. And foreign policy determines how the U.K. handles the diplomacy (or non-diplomacy) between the U.K and foreign countries. And, yes, that's U.K. not England. Seeing as how they're not synonyms.

And you think I'm the ignorant one.

Well, what a stupid person thinks isn't of much relevance to me. No harm, no foul.

And none of anything that you've posted has been in your favour, wrt the whole aspect of U.K. not being a synonym of England... regardless of the languages spoken, where the laws are made, nor where the queen plonks her arse, if 2 legs of that throne aren't each straddling the border between Scotland and England.

[Jason]

I only need address the single point you attempted to make there: An English monarch sits on the Throne of Scotland. /thread

All the rest is so much stuff.



Do try harder.

[Cormac]

I've had my say on this thread. There'll be no convincing either side, so now that I've set out my views, I don't plan to repeat them over and over.