Conquer Club

Norse your diagram is missing inner london.


erm... wait no, um, you never seen me here.

*poof*

Norse wrote:

soundout9 wrote:So scottland is its on idividual country or is it more of a state or territory of UK

Scotland has it's own parliament, governs itself to a great degree, and has it's own seperate identity. It is subsidised by england economy, and takes out than what it contributes...

I would drop them altogether if it was my choice, as well as the welsh. Nothing personal.

However, I would give northern Ireland the oppurtunity to remain in a union with england.

Well, THe English did quite well out of the Scots north sea oil. Plus, with an independant Scotland, England would cut an even weaker international presence than it does already.

Norse wrote:

soundout9 wrote:So scottland is its on idividual country or is it more of a state or territory of UK

Scotland has it's own parliament, governs itself to a great degree, and has it's own seperate identity. It is subsidised by england economy, and takes out than what it contributes...

I would drop them altogether if it was my choice, as well as the welsh. Nothing personal.

However, I would give northern Ireland the oppurtunity to remain in a union with england.

So you'd be happy to cripple the country economically?

suggs wrote:
Well, THe English did quite well out of the Scots north sea oil. Plus, with an independant Scotland, England would cut an even weaker international presence than it does already.

That is a myth. Scotland has always traditionally bled the british budget, due to the geographical layout of the country per head (ie. having to spend a great deal more on providing the public services over a wide area with little population) plus add into the equation higher than average unemployment rates and a lack of innovation. This is not even taking into account the free university tuition that the scots have the benefit of, and also the free medical subscriptions, none of which england has the benefit of.

The north sea oil would not have covered a fraction of the additional subsidised costs.

Guiscard wrote:
So you'd be happy to cripple the country economically?

Not my problem.

Nothing personal, but I am as scottish as I am burkino-fason.

Norse wrote:

Guiscard wrote:
So you'd be happy to cripple the country economically?

Not my problem.

Nothing personal, but I am as scottish as I am burkino-fason.

I'm not talking about their economy. Do you have any knowledge of how our economy works?

Mayhap. But what about the ridiculous possibility of Scotland vetoing an English resolution in the UN or the EU etc. Be a bit gutting.
PLus, there is the danger of precedence. Should we just split into the old Five Kingdoms, Mercia, Essex etc?

suggs wrote:Mayhap. But what about the ridiculous possibility of Scotland vetoing an English resolution in the UN or the EU etc. Be a bit gutting.
PLus, there is the danger of precedence. Should we just split into the old Five Kingdoms, Mercia, Essex etc?

Indeed. And should parts of Cornwall be included in Wales, if we're going down that root...

suggs wrote:Mayhap. But what about the ridiculous possibility of Scotland vetoing an English resolution in the UN or the EU etc. Be a bit gutting.

Surely a country like scotland would only have a couple of representatives...maybe less than Ireland, they would bear very little control over european proceedings.

PLus, there is the danger of precedence. Should we just split into the old Five Kingdoms, Mercia, Essex etc?

Again, if it was my choice, I would split wessex off from the rest of the UK, and build 50 foot high steel walls aroung the borders.

But anyhoo suggs old chap, would you not like to be richer? what is your problem with money?

Thing is Norse, you might be right economically speaking. But politically, the British Isles make more sense as a single unified nation.

suggs wrote:Thing is Norse, you might be right economically speaking. But politically, the British Isles make more sense as a single unified nation.

I'm not following you....surely if a nation is economically better off, it wealds more power politically.

Norse wrote:

suggs wrote:Mayhap. But what about the ridiculous possibility of Scotland vetoing an English resolution in the UN or the EU etc. Be a bit gutting.

Surely a country like scotland would only have a couple of representatives...maybe less than Ireland, they would bear very little control over european proceedings.

PLus, there is the danger of precedence. Should we just split into the old Five Kingdoms, Mercia, Essex etc?

Again, if it was my choice, I would split wessex off from the rest of the UK, and build 50 foot high steel walls aroung the borders.

But anyhoo suggs old chap, would you not like to be richer? what is your problem with money?

yeah

Guiscard wrote:

suggs wrote:Mayhap. But what about the ridiculous possibility of Scotland vetoing an English resolution in the UN or the EU etc. Be a bit gutting.
PLus, there is the danger of precedence. Should we just split into the old Five Kingdoms, Mercia, Essex etc?

Indeed. And should parts of Cornwall be included in Wales, if we're going down that root...

Thanks for including me in your sig

Perhaps i granted the economic argument too readily. England might be fractionally better off, though i doubt by much (thered be slight increases in the diplomatic service, bureacracy etc)
But even if you had a few more quid in your pocket, when the USA starts to sign biliteral nuclear agreements with scotland etc, Englands impotence would be finally revealed. I'm not a nationalist,but i like to see England look half decent to the rest of the world. What a laughing stock we would become. And with the corresponding decline in investment and tourism, you'd be handing that extra few quid over to Edinburgh in no time at all.

Wee Jock McSuggs.

suggs wrote:Perhaps i granted the economic argument too readily. England might be fractionally better off, though i doubt by much (thered be slight increases in the diplomatic service, bureacracy etc)
But even if you had a few more quid in your pocket, when the USA starts to sign biliteral nuclear agreements with scotland etc, Englands impotence would be finally revealed. I'm not a nationalist,but i like to see England look half decent to the rest of the world. What a laughing stock we would become. And with the corresponding decline in investment and tourism, you'd be handing that extra few quid over to Edinburgh in no time at all.

Wee Jock McSuggs.

Suggs, all of this is ridiculous.

In other words, you have no comeback!

dam scottish spongers. They want it all one way and I for one dont like it.

I like taking it one way.

Norse wrote:Here is a slightly more accurate picture of the UK.

That almost looks like it could be a CC map! What says you?

Jesse710 wrote:So basically it is a country inside a country?

Wow confusing. Why does it all have to be the UK.? Why can't they all be seperate on maps and stuff?

All the Native American Reservations are considered basically countries within a country.

Norse wrote:Sorry, this is clearer

This is a much improved CC map version...is this the Map Foundry? Or did I take a wrong turn somewhere????

Titanic wrote:Its not really a country as it does not have the political system of a country. It has limited powers politically which are controlled by the British government.

In other ways such as culturally it is its own country.

Coming from the kid who said England still "owns" Australia & Canada.....

Iz Man wrote:

Titanic wrote:Its not really a country as it does not have the political system of a country. It has limited powers politically which are controlled by the British government.

In other ways such as culturally it is its own country.

Coming from the kid who said England still "owns" Australia & Canada.....

Technically, yes. In reality, no.

For Scotland, it is not its own independant country technically or in reality.

Iz Man wrote:

Titanic wrote:Its not really a country as it does not have the political system of a country. It has limited powers politically which are controlled by the British government.

In other ways such as culturally it is its own country.

Coming from the kid who said England still "owns" Australia & Canada.....

Well, according to ILLUMINATI BLoodlines of Power...England still owns America as well, and the world is being run by three City Empires which are:

Vatican City

Inner City London

Washington DC

All of which have obelisks located in them, a symbol of their Pharoah heritage...

ILLUMINATI Bloodlines has been posted in another thread.

Not to mention the english banking families whome partly own the federal reserve.