What has the UK ever done for you?
-
@djork said:
- That way of acting calm and collected no matter how horribly things are going at the moment
Like queuing calmly during a crisis at Northen Rock?
- That way of acting calm and collected no matter how horribly things are going at the moment
-
@Mrrix32 said:
@djork said:
- That way of acting calm and collected no matter how horribly things are going at the moment
Like queuing calmly during a crisis at Northen Rock?
Hilarity ensues: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyVk8EI6asQ
- That way of acting calm and collected no matter how horribly things are going at the moment
-
@People said:
The UK is not made up of 4 separate countries.
This may sound a bit glib, but as far as I'm aware the British have always referred to them as separate countries, to claim that we have been misusing a word in our own language for hundreds of years seems sort of pedantic to the point of insanity. Or to put it another way, if a dictionary has a different idea of what a word means than the majority of people who speak the language, it's probably the dictionary we should update, not the people.
-
@Devi said:
@People said:
The UK is not made up of 4 separate countries.
This may sound a bit glib, but as far as I'm aware the British have always referred to them as separate countries, to claim that we have been misusing a word in our own language for hundreds of years seems sort of pedantic to the point of insanity. Or to put it another way, if a dictionary has a different idea of what a word means than the majority of people who speak the language, it's probably the dictionary we should update, not the people.
Let's be absolutely clear. The UK is made of four countries to precisely the same extent that the US is made of fifty states. Let's not be the one to cast the first stone when it comes to inconsistency of definitions.
-
@Random832 said:
@Devi said:
@People said:
The UK is not made up of 4 separate countries.
This may sound a bit glib, but as far as I'm aware the British have always referred to them as separate countries, to claim that we have been misusing a word in our own language for hundreds of years seems sort of pedantic to the point of insanity. Or to put it another way, if a dictionary has a different idea of what a word means than the majority of people who speak the language, it's probably the dictionary we should update, not the people.
Let's be absolutely clear. The UK is made of four countries to precisely the same extent that the US is made of fifty states. Let's not be the one to cast the first stone when it comes to inconsistency of definitions.
Except that US states have a certain amount of power reserved for them, while the constituent elements of the UK have no more power than Parliament decides to give them, and their status is no different to that of a county or borough.
-
@asuffield said:
Except that US states have a certain amount of power reserved for them, while the constituent elements of the UK have no more power than Parliament decides to give them, and their status is no different to that of a county or borough.
Yes, but Wales is defined as a country by both the Encyclopaedia Britannica ([url]http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9110755/Wales[/url]) and Wikipedia ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wales[/url]). It has a [i]national[/i] anthem and a [i]national[/i] assembly. Legally speaking it is not a country (apparently [url]http://www.talkwales.com/articlelovingtheenglish.htm[/url]), however the people who live in Wales consider it a country and so do most of the people who live in the rest of the UK.
It certainly has a different status than counties or boroughs, it isn't governed by a county or borough council for example. In fact Wales itself contains 13 or 22 different counties, depending on how you define the term (There are 13 areas traditionally defined as counties, but the land is split into 22 council areas).
-
@Devi said:
@asuffield said:
Except that US states have a certain amount of power reserved for them, while the constituent elements of the UK have no more power than Parliament decides to give them, and their status is no different to that of a county or borough.
Yes, but Wales is defined as a country by both the Encyclopaedia Britannica ([url]http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9110755/Wales[/url]) and Wikipedia ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wales[/url]). It has a [i]national[/i] anthem and a [i]national[/i] assembly. Legally speaking it is not a country (apparently [url]http://www.talkwales.com/articlelovingtheenglish.htm[/url]), however the people who live in Wales consider it a country and so do most of the people who live in the rest of the UK.
Wales is more like a large collection of sheep on hills.
You appear very adept at twisting words until they mean whatever you want. Have you ever considered going into politics?
It certainly has a different status than counties or boroughs, it isn't governed by a county or borough council for example. In fact Wales itself contains 13 or 22 different counties, depending on how you define the term (There are 13 areas traditionally defined as counties, but the land is split into 22 council areas).
You might as well argue that counties and boroughs have a different status because one has a county council and the other has a borough council. Realistically the only difference is size. The fact that some of them overlap isn't really important.
-
@asuffield said:
Wales is more like a large collection of sheep on hills.
You appear very adept at twisting words until they mean whatever you want. Have you ever considered going into politics?
My argument is that Wales et al are countries because we, as British people, call them countries. We have called them countries for a very long time. As evidence I have provided references to two encyclopedias. You are the one who appears to be trying to redefine the word "country" so that it no longer applies. Where is your evidence to prove me wrong? If all you can do is imply that I'm a weasle tongued politician, it gives the impression that you don't have any.
-
@asuffield said:
You might as well argue that counties and boroughs have a different status because one has a county council and the other has a borough council. Realistically the only difference is size. The fact that some of them overlap isn't really important.
Well, I considered their status was different because they have totally different governmental structures. I would also assume that Wales as a whole has significantly more political clout than somewhere like Warwickshire. I do see your point in the respect of political independence though, assuming that's what you're getting at?
-
I think i better quickly throw this one out there:
George Boole was a brit...
nuff said
-
@Devi said:
@asuffield said:
You might as well argue that counties and boroughs have a different status because one has a county council and the other has a borough council. Realistically the only difference is size. The fact that some of them overlap isn't really important.
Well, I considered their status was different because they have totally different governmental structures.
Pretty damn near every borough and city council in the UK has a totally different structure, having been assembled over the centuries from whatever was in vogue at the time. The by-laws alone are just insane. There is no appreciable consistency or sanity in UK local government, so the absence of any here is not significant.
I would also assume that Wales as a whole has significantly more political clout than somewhere like Warwickshire.
And significantly less than the City of Westminster (a borough, despite the misleading name - historical inanity). Also, Wales has a little under half the population of Greater London, and roughly the same as the West Midlands and Greater Manchester. It's pretty much equivalent to a large county.
-
@asuffield said:
@Devi said:
@asuffield said:
You might as well argue that counties and boroughs have a different status because one has a county council and the other has a borough council. Realistically the only difference is size. The fact that some of them overlap isn't really important.
Well, I considered their status was different because they have totally different governmental structures.
Pretty damn near every borough and city council in the UK has a totally different structure, having been assembled over the centuries from whatever was in vogue at the time. The by-laws alone are just insane. There is no appreciable consistency or sanity in UK local government, so the absence of any here is not significant.
I would also assume that Wales as a whole has significantly more political clout than somewhere like Warwickshire.
And significantly less than the City of Westminster (a borough, despite the misleading name - historical inanity). Also, Wales has a little under half the population of Greater London, and roughly the same as the West Midlands and Greater Manchester. It's pretty much equivalent to a large county.
That's fair enough, though I really do hope you're not trying to convince me that Wales actually [i]is[/i] a county.
-
@slyadams said:
@SuperousOxide said:
@slyadams said:
Also, in regards to "Since when do US states have their own banknotes, for example", they don't, but they have their own coins. In the same way that different countries in Europe have different design of Euro/cent coins (even if they are all worth the same) the US states have different design of coins.
US states do not have their own coins. Current US quarters are being minted with a series of designs highlighting each state, but they are not all being minted at once, and they are distributed nationwide.I never stated the coins were different in value, size, composition and usage. All I said was that there are state specific designs on some coins, true or false?
it's that's all you were saying then why did you bother to post it, since it didn't actually prove your point?
@slyadams said:
However, valerion was trying to use this fact to support his notion that Scotland is more independant than, say, Texas:you chose your state poorly. Going by your own argument that the countries in Europe are countries because they can opt out of the EU, Texas has the right to opt out of the United States at any time it wants.
All this talk of countries, states, provinces, etc. is nonsense. Those are just terms made up to label parts of something. What you are referring to as "country" should really be called a sovereign state.
-
I would say they're called countries because they've always been called countries, for hundreds and hundreds of years.
Also, GMT.
-
@tster said:
you chose your state poorly. Going by your own argument that the countries in Europe are countries because they can opt out of the EU, Texas has the right to opt out of the United States at any time it wants.
Note: not actually true. It also can't split into five states at will.
All this talk of countries, states, provinces, etc. is nonsense. Those are just terms made up to label parts of something. What you are referring to as "country" should really be called a sovereign state.
That's the point I was trying to make - "country" is no more reserved for fully sovereign entities than "state".
-
I want to add Terry Pratchett to that list.
I wouldn't know about the alcohol.
-
@LightningDragon said:
I want to add Terry Pratchett to that list.
I wouldn't know about the alcohol.
Ah, and also Douglas Adams.
However it didn't give us a Euro2008 qualifying team, a rugby world cup winning team or an F1 champion. What a rubbish week that was!
-
@tster said:
@slyadams said:
@SuperousOxide said:
@slyadams said:
Also, in regards to "Since when do US states have their own banknotes, for example", they don't, but they have their own coins. In the same way that different countries in Europe have different design of Euro/cent coins (even if they are all worth the same) the US states have different design of coins.
US states do not have their own coins. Current US quarters are being minted with a series of designs highlighting each state, but they are not all being minted at once, and they are distributed nationwide.I never stated the coins were different in value, size, composition and usage. All I said was that there are state specific designs on some coins, true or false?
it's that's all you were saying then why did you bother to post it, since it didn't actually prove your point?
I used it an example to show that just because an item of the same currency looks different to another (e.g. Scottish £5 note looks different to English £5 note) it doesn't make them at all different from a practical standpoint. Just because The Scottish £5 has its own design, it doesn't give it its own currency, as valerion was originally suggesting.
@tster said:
@slyadams said:
However, valerion was trying to use this fact to support his notion that Scotland is more independant than, say, Texas:
you chose your state poorly. Going by your own argument that the countries in Europe are countries because they can opt out of the EU, Texas has the right to opt out of the United States at any time it wants.
All this talk of countries, states, provinces, etc. is nonsense. Those are just terms made up to label parts of something. What you are referring to as "country" should really be called a sovereign state.
I realised after I posted that Texas wasn't the best choice, but I think its spurious and unnecessary to call my choice 'poor'. I am not American and I don't have detailed knowledge of all the conditions that states joined the union. Belittling someone's point because their knowledge of your country is less than your own is a poor way to frame a debate.
-
@slyadams said:
I used it an example to show that just because an item of the same currency looks different to another (e.g. Scottish £5 note looks different to English £5 note) it doesn't make them at all different from a practical standpoint. Just because The Scottish £5 has its own design, it doesn't give it its own currency, as valerion was originally suggesting.Um, please show me where I said that Scotland has it's own currency. The closest thing I said was "Since when do US states have their own banknotes, for example?". I never once said currency.
-
@Martin said:
@ammoQ said:
Were are getting very philosophical here. Is a programmable computer that eventually has never been build really a programmable computer?
I do believe that Babbage's Analytical Engine was finally built by one of the British colleges (I forget which one) to be displayed in the Science Museum in London - and it worked. I also seem to remember that they actually built it using Meccano.
Absolutely not.
The Difference Engine without it's printer was eventually constructed for the science museum. Later an MS exec (Paul Allen maybe? I don't have my book handy) commissioned a second Difference Engine and was able to convince them to do it by also paying for them to make 2 of it's printing units, one for him and one for the museum to keep. There are hobbyists and tinkerers who've used Meccano or Erector sets (even Lego in one case) to make a few columns of a Difference Engine similar to the small desktop sized example that Babbage would use to amuse guests, but it's been said that the Analytical Engine was so complex and it's drawings incomplete enough that it can't be built without practically starting over using the original plans for ideas if at all.
Even the Difference Engine plans had some serious problems that had to be solved when it was built.
The Difference Engine: Charles Babbage and the Quest to Build the First Computer is a great book about it.
-
@slyadams said:
@tster said:
@slyadams said:
@SuperousOxide said:
@slyadams said:
Also, in regards to "Since when do US states have their own banknotes, for example", they don't, but they have their own coins. In the same way that different countries in Europe have different design of Euro/cent coins (even if they are all worth the same) the US states have different design of coins.
US states do not have their own coins. Current US quarters are being minted with a series of designs highlighting each state, but they are not all being minted at once, and they are distributed nationwide.I never stated the coins were different in value, size, composition and usage. All I said was that there are state specific designs on some coins, true or false?
it's that's all you were saying then why did you bother to post it, since it didn't actually prove your point?
I used it an example to show that just because an item of the same currency looks different to another (e.g. Scottish £5 note looks different to English £5 note) it doesn't make them at all different from a practical standpoint. Just because The Scottish £5 has its own design, it doesn't give it its own currency, as valerion was originally suggesting.
@tster said:
@slyadams said:
However, valerion was trying to use this fact to support his notion that Scotland is more independant than, say, Texas:
you chose your state poorly. Going by your own argument that the countries in Europe are countries because they can opt out of the EU, Texas has the right to opt out of the United States at any time it wants.
All this talk of countries, states, provinces, etc. is nonsense. Those are just terms made up to label parts of something. What you are referring to as "country" should really be called a sovereign state.
I realised after I posted that Texas wasn't the best choice, but I think its spurious and unnecessary to call my choice 'poor'. I am not American and I don't have detailed knowledge of all the conditions that states joined the union. Belittling someone's point because their knowledge of your country is less than your own is a poor way to frame a debate.I didn't mean to belittle your point. In fact, I agree with it. I just wanted to bring up the little know fact that Texas has that right (which is an artifact of the way Texas joined the US after they declared independence from Mexico.).
And yes, Random832, it is true.
-
more info:
http://www.texassecede.com/faq.asp
I guess that there Constitution no longer explicitly states it, but it remains true none the less.
-
Grrr...
England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are the constituent countries of the United Kingdom. There's no similar arrangement anywhere else in the world, so likening it to $other_country is always going to be flawed.
Maybe some history is in order.
England existed as a unified kingdom when it was conquered by William I in 1066
Wales existed sometimes as one, sometimes more, kingdoms and/or principalities, until 1282, when Llywelyn the Last fell and it was conquered by England. However, Wales was not completely absorbed into England until 1542, in the reign of Henry VII. At this point Wales had no independence.
Scotland was a unified, independent kingdom, and had a Parliament first in 1326. In 1603, James VI of Scotland became also King of England as he was the legal sucessor. However, the only connection at this point was the shared monarchy - Scotland and England remained distinct kingdoms.
In 1707, the Act of Union 1707 was passed. This abolished the distinct Kingdoms and Parliaments of England and Scotland, replacing them with the Kingdom and Parliament of Great Britain. However, Scots law remained distinct from English law.
Ireland was united with Great Britain by the Act of Union 1800, forming the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
In 1926, the Irish Free State was formed when 26 counties in Ireland seceeded; this later changed it's name to the Republic of Ireland. This left The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. However, Northern Ireland was independently governed by the Ulster Unionist Party.
In 1971, Northern Ireland was placed under direct rule by the British Parliament.
At this point, the United Kingdom was in its most 'unified' state. Since then, powers have been devolved.
In 1998, Northern Ireland regained some self-governance, but this has been on and off since, as political parties have been unable to agree, and Sinn Fein has been regularly excluded due to associations with the IRA, a paramilitary group.
In 1999, the Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales were created.
The Scottish Parliament, from the outset, could make laws on any matter except those explicilty 'reserved' for the UK Parliament.
The National Assembly for Wales initially had no legislative power, only control over government spending. It gained limited legislative powers in 2006, vetoable by the UK Parliament.
So the present situation:
England has full control over itself, obviously. Though the UK Parliament also contains ministers from the whole UK, who can vote on laws that do not affect their own constituents.
Scotland has a large amount of autonomy, but some powers are in the control of England
Wales has limited autonomy.
Northern Ireland is rather complicated.
-
-
@dhromed said:
@m0ffx said:
stuff
Enlightening.
So Scotland and Wales basically have Token Sovereignty.
They have token power. Sovereignty is precisely what they do not have - that rests in Westminster alone.
-
Oh, it's also maybe worth mentioning (just to make things more interesting) that Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of
Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and the United Kingdom
and is so distinctly in all 16 nations; she is one monarch holding 16 crowns, just as James VI/I held the crowns of Scotland and England. Any nation could in principle change its laws of succession in such a way as to cause this union to split.
Her and her predecessors thus have actually been at war with themselves on a number of occasions.
-
@tster said:
more info:
http://www.texassecede.com/faq.asp
I guess that there Constitution no longer explicitly states it, but it remains true none the less.
@that site said:
However, it does state (in Article 1, Section 1) that “Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States...” (note that it does not state “...subject to the President of the United States...” or “...subject to the Congress of the United States...”
No, it doesn't state those. However, the Constitution of the United States does, and thus those are included by reference.
@more said:
Q:
Didn’t the “Civil War” prove that secession is not an option for any State?
A:
No. It only proved that, when allowed to act outside his
lawfully limited authority, a U.S. president is capable of unleashing
horrendous violence against the lives, liberty, and property of those
whom he pretends to ...at this point, i stopped reading.So in other words, you expect me to believe that's a credible source.
-
@Devi said:
@asuffield said:
Wales is more like a large collection of sheep on hills.
You appear very adept at twisting words until they mean whatever you want. Have you ever considered going into politics?
My argument is that Wales et al are countries because we, as British people, call them countries. We have called them countries for a very long time. As evidence I have provided references to two encyclopedias. You are the one who appears to be trying to redefine the word "country" so that it no longer applies. Where is your evidence to prove me wrong? If all you can do is imply that I'm a weasle tongued politician, it gives the impression that you don't have any.
And on that note, I'm the President of Broncos Nation. Catch us at the next UN meeting.
You can call it whatever you want, but that doesn't make it so. The UK is a country, and a country cannot contain a country, by definition (a sovereign state cannot be below another sovereign state). Hence, Wales is not a country. In Pennsylvania, the Amish live in what's known as Amish Country. Everyone calls it that. Nobody disputes that it's called Amish Country. You can call it whatever you want, but that doesn't make it a real country.
While I'm posting: The Concorde was a joint French-British project, so you can cross that one off the list.
-
@Pap said:
The UK is a country,
False.
and a country cannot contain a country, by definition
Possibly true, but irrelevant.
(a sovereign state cannot be below another sovereign state).
False. See the United States of America, which both is one and contains fifty sovereign states, or, at least it used to (maybe less than fifty at the last time it did, but that's not the point). this has even been argued in this thread as a reason that "state" can legitimately be applied to these 50 states, but "country" cannot be applied to the four countries of the united kingdom. Also irrelevant, as Wales is not sovereign, has not been for quite some time, and to my knowledge nobody claims it is. England and Scotland are also not sovereign, though they were so rather more recently than Wales was.
Hence, Wales is not a country.
This does indeed follow from your premises, the only problem is those premises are not true.
In Pennsylvania, the Amish live in what's known as Amish Country. Everyone calls it that. Nobody disputes that it's called Amish Country. You can call it whatever you want, but that doesn't make it a real country.
The sense of the word "country" used there is of a general area of land with a particular characteristic. This is not, incidentally, the sense that is used when referring to Wales.
The problem here is the (incorrect, but tempting) idea that "country" is a term which means "sovereign state", and that not being a sovereign state disqualifies an entity from being called a "country". And it'd be more true for "state", if anything. The UK is not a country.
-
@Random832 said:
False. See the United States of America, which both is one and contains fifty sovereign states
You appear fundamentally clueless about the definition of the word "sovereign". The US states aren't.
The sense of the word "country" used there is of a general area of land with a particular characteristic.
Is it nice on your planet?
-
For the record, in case it hasn't already been settled, all US currency, paper and coin, is issued by the federal government, regardless of the fact that some quarters have designs honoring individual states. Power has been shifting from individual states to the federal government for many years, primarily by means of handing out tax revenues with strings attached.
-
@asuffield said:
@Random832 said:
False. See the United States of America, which both is one and contains fifty sovereign states
You appear fundamentally clueless about the definition of the word "sovereign". The US states aren't.
They were in the past, and did not stop being so any earlier than 1860.
-
@Random832 said:
@asuffield said:
@Random832 said:
False. See the United States of America, which both is one and contains fifty sovereign states
You appear fundamentally clueless about the definition of the word "sovereign". The US states aren't.
They were in the past, and did not stop being so any earlier than 1860.
And yet I was comparing the UK to the USA. Not the USA of 150 years ago.
-
@slyadams said:
@Random832 said:
@asuffield said:
@Random832 said:
False. See the United States of America, which both is one and contains fifty sovereign states
You appear fundamentally clueless about the definition of the word "sovereign". The US states aren't.
They were in the past, and did not stop being so any earlier than 1860.
And yet I was comparing the UK to the USA. Not the USA of 150 years ago.
I wasn't comparing anything to anything, simply refuting the unqualified assertion that "a sovereign state cannot be below another sovereign state". I also pointed out why that assertion was entirely irrelevant (since no-one has claimed Wales is a sovereign state), so you've basically latched onto something I said which wasn't even necessary to my point, and are claiming that is the one flaw in my argument.
-
@Random832 said:
False. See the United States of America, which both is one and contains fifty sovereign states, or, at least it used to
The problem here is the (incorrect, but tempting) idea that "country" is a term which means "sovereign state", and that not being a sovereign state disqualifies an entity from being called a "country". And it'd be more true for "state", if anything. The UK is not a country.
The Supremacy Clause is the common name given to Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, which reads:“ This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
So, basically: "You get what powers we say you can get, and nothing more." Doesn't sound as if the individual states were very sovereign to me. I know they kept using the word, but that was mainly to make them feel warm and fuzzy, and to convince them to give up their newly aquired independence to form a new central powerful government.
I know that there are several definitions of the word country, and you saw me use one above to mean "geographical region", but when the original person in this thread said "Scotland is not a country!" it's because there are many ignorant Americans who think Scotland is a country in the exact same way that Ireland is a country. Hence the need for a correction. I once overheard some coworkers debate the difference between Great Britain and the United Kingdom for about 15 minutes. They eventually agreed that Ireland (sic) was part of the United Kingdom, but not Great Britain. Quite entertaining.
So first we would need to agree on our definition of country. If it turns out that we are not discussing it in terms of "sovereign nation", then I would like to take this opportunity to tell you more about my home country: Broncos Nation!
-
@Random832 said:
I wasn't comparing anything to anything, simply refuting the unqualified assertion that "a sovereign state cannot be below another sovereign state".
I'm going to go ahead and disagree again with your statement. Here is my argument:
Sovereignty is the exclusive right to complete political (e.g. legislative, judicial, and/or executive) control over an area of governance, people, or oneself. A sovereign is the supreme lawmaking authority, subject to no other.
http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9379193
In political theory, the ultimate authority in the decision-making process of the state and in the maintenance of order.
By literal definition, a sovereign entity answers to no other. You're saying that's true, except when it does. Please enlighten me.
-
@Pap said:
I once overheard some coworkers debate the difference between Great Britain and the United Kingdom for about 15 minutes. They eventually agreed that Ireland (sic) was part of the United Kingdom, but not Great Britain. Quite entertaining.
That one's easy. Great Britain is the name of the major island in the British Isles. The UK is the largest country on the Isles, spanning Great Britain, part of Ireland, and a few dozen of the minor islands. The other parts of the British Isles are more obscure (like the Isle of Mann and the Bailiwick of Guernsey). The UK and the RoI are the only sovereign countries, but several of the minor islands aren't exactly part of either of them. It all gets very complicated at that point.
-
@Pap said:
And on that note, I'm the President of Broncos Nation. Catch us at the next UN meeting.
You can call it whatever you want, but that doesn't make it so. The UK is a country, and a country cannot contain a country, by definition (a sovereign state cannot be below another sovereign state). Hence, Wales is not a country. In Pennsylvania, the Amish live in what's known as Amish Country. Everyone calls it that. Nobody disputes that it's called Amish Country. You can call it whatever you want, but that doesn't make it a real country.
Really? Here's a definition of the word "Country" ([url]http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?gwp=13&s=country[/url])
n., pl. -tries.
- A nation or state.
- The territory of a nation or state; land.
- The people of a nation or state; populace: The whole country will profit from the new economic reforms.
- The land of a person's birth or citizenship: Foreign travel is restricted in his country.
- A region, territory, or large tract of land distinguishable by features of topography, biology, or culture: hill country; Bible country.
- An area or expanse outside cities and towns; a rural area: a vacation in the country.
- Law. A jury.
- Informal. Country music.
Since it seems relevent, here's nation [url]http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?gwp=13&s=nation[/url]
na·tion (nā'shən)
n.- A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.
- The territory occupied by such a group of people: All across the nation, people are voting their representatives out.
- The government of a sovereign state.
- A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality: “Historically the Ukrainians are an ancient nation which has persisted and survived through terrible calamity” (Robert Conquest).
- A federation or tribe, especially one composed of Native Americans.
- The territory occupied by such a federation or tribe.
You seem to be under the impression that words are only allowed to have one meaning, this is simply not true. If you define Country to mean "Nation State", then you are quite correct, however if you take the word to mean "The territory of a people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language" you are wrong.Secondly, a word gains its definition from what people mean when they say it; a dictionary's definition reflects the common definition used by the language's speakers, not the other way around. It has to be so, since English was around in one form or another long before dictionaries were. In the UK people use the word "Country" to refer to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Since the UK is where the English language came from, it's quite reasonable to accept this secondary definition of the word as valid.
@Pap said:
While I'm posting: The Concorde was a joint French-British project, so you can cross that one off the list.
It was also a colossal failure, so I'm not too sure why they keep going on about it :)
-
@Devi said:
You seem to be under the impression that words are only allowed to have one meaning, this is simply not true.I understand that words can have multiple valid meanings, and that the defined meaning(s) is defined by common usage. The reason I jumped in to say the constituent countries aren't real countries is because so many people (Americans) think Scotland really is a country proper (as in having a seat at the UN, like Ireland) that it's gotten ridiculous. Scotland and England (and Puerto Rico) do get their own teams at the World Cup, further confusing the situation.
Since everybody here seemed to be arguing about a different thing, this entire discussion effectively became pointless.
-
@Pap said:
I understand that words can have multiple valid meanings, and that the defined meaning(s) is defined by common usage. The reason I jumped in to say the constituent countries aren't real countries is because so many people (Americans) think Scotland really is a country proper (as in having a seat at the UN, like Ireland) that it's gotten ridiculous. Scotland and England (and Puerto Rico) do get their own teams at the World Cup, further confusing the situation.
Since everybody here seemed to be arguing about a different thing, this entire discussion effectively became pointless.
That's okay, It's just that I'm half Welsh so sometimes I have an irrational desire to defend my homeland. We have a football team in the world cup too, only they usually suck so badly that nobody ever notices that they're there =)
-
@Pap said:
Since everybody here seemed to be arguing about a different thing, this entire discussion effectively became pointless.
Yes, it all depends on how you define a country. If you are talking about an '(independent|sovereign) (country|nation|state)' then England isn't one, but the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is. However, if you're talking about just a "country", then I think it is. Common usage in the English language says it is, and since 'country' is an English word, that means it is.
Just because many people (...) don't know where anywhere outside their own country is, doesn't make them right...
-
@Devi said:
@Pap said:
I understand that words can have multiple valid meanings, and that the defined meaning(s) is defined by common usage. The reason I jumped in to say the constituent countries aren't real countries is because so many people (Americans) think Scotland really is a country proper (as in having a seat at the UN, like Ireland) that it's gotten ridiculous. Scotland and England (and Puerto Rico) do get their own teams at the World Cup, further confusing the situation.
Since everybody here seemed to be arguing about a different thing, this entire discussion effectively became pointless.
That's okay, It's just that I'm half Welsh so sometimes I have an irrational desire to defend my homeland. We have a football team in the world cup too, only they usually suck so badly that nobody ever notices that they're there =)
We do, however, have a good rugby team.
Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia
