>England? Scotish? Surely you haven't brought yourself to regognize that we ar
>four nations have you?
>You mean 'British'.
way I would say Catalan, Castillean, etc. People give different meanings to
words such as nation and country ("country club" for example, "The Cherokee
Nation", "living in the country instead of in the city", etc). That is why
I often refer to England, etc, as "provinces" of the UK as it convey a clear,
undisputable meaning (not to offend as somebody interpreted.) The issue is
sovereignity, which is not relinquished by any European country ("country"
like UK, France, Spain, etc, see ?). Since even sovereignity may be missinter-
preted, I define sovereignity as that recognized by the United Nations. Since
most people in the world identify the World Cup as a competition between
sovereign countries, I insist that FIFA should respect that and allow only
one participant for each sovereign country. It is funny that at first many
people gave me a "lesson of geography" and explained that Scotland, Wales, etc
each were a separate, sovereign country, to which I may add "and the Three
Wise Men bring present to the children every year".
>prefer to get beaten under this one. I am ENGLISH and nothing else. We are
>four different nations in political union. Therefore, does the closer politica
>union within the EEC, eg Monetery Union, Common Defence Polity, CAP, etc imply
>that when the Maastrict treaty is complete we must have a Single European
>Your reply I assume will consist of something like "Ahh, but you have seperate
>governments". This may be the case but then England is split into counties whi
>effectivly have seperate governments, and those are split into Districts which
>all have seperate governments, which in turn are split into Parishes which
>have seperate "governments" (councils).
accomodated is for the UK provinces to organize a previous cup to decide
which province will represent the UK in the subsequent World Cup. Such
competition would be great indeed and probably very, very interesting and
profitable. (and one I would love to attend as honored guest since I am
proposing it :-)) The winner will go to the World Cup qualifying round as
UK representative, of course.
>How far do you take it? You could say (particularly silly) that there may
>be only one football team in the world since the UN is a World Government.
cases to which the rule should apply, like Faroe Islands. Some cases are
truly complicated, like Puerto Rico and Taiwan.
>The problem lies in where you draw the line. The British Government (Political
>Union) recognises the four seperate nations in having a Secretary of State for
>each. We are far from being one nation.
has its own Congress, Constitution, etc (like U.S.A.) while you don't. If it
is for racial and language differences, you have less differences than other
countries, like Belgium. Look at Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. They had
bigger differences that you have and yet for long had to send a single team
to the world cup. Do you have any doubt that by WC98 they will be sending
separate teams. Look to the reverse case. Both germanies were identical in
race and language, yet they had separate teams. It was sovereignity that
produced separate West Germany and East Germany teams as it was sovereignity
that forced on them separate FA's.
>Queen of England, Queen of Scotland, etc (and Queen of Australia if you want
>a real *** bath!)
less democratic thing that had ever being imagined. You should get away with
it. Leave it as a touristic attraction but eliminate all the perks (and change
the name of the country on your way: as Northern Ireland should become
independent, call it Great Britain; of course if the provinces all separate
there will be no trouble with names and world cup participation :-)).
>us no advantage. A united team would be a lot more powerful anyway.
said slightly if any more powerful, let me correct myself.)
>I confess you have argued your case very well over the past few days (or is
> \ Paul Felton
Sergio Adeff (an Argentinean in Mississippi)