2010 Delhi Commonwealth Games - Road racing

[Ferminal]

The term United Kingdom (UK) refers to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
It is a political union rather than a geographical term.

That's exactly what a country is?

 

[abbaskip]

You are all relying far too much on wikipedia.

From Ordnance Survey:

The term United Kingdom (UK) refers to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
It is a political union rather than a geographical term.

In international law and international relations, a state is a geographic political entity possessing politicial sovereignty, i.e. not being subject to any higher political authority. (see Montevideo Convention 1933)

In casual language, the idea of a "state" and a "country" are usually regarded as synonymous. The United States are not made up of several 'countries' and the United Arab Emirates are made up of seven 'emirates'. They are both countries too.

and for the record, technically neither wales or northern ireland are countries..

Ah, well put. Exactly.

Australia, and the US are both Federations. IE. A country made up of self governing smaller parts (we call them states in the US and Australia). In Australia each state has it's own state parliament, which makes a fair chunk of their rules. But there is also a federal parliament. As there is in the US and UK.

However in the UK, England doesn't even have it's own parliament! It uses the British parliament. And this has been an issue for years, as Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish politicians, get a say in English affairs because of this.

The UAE is a nation made of up Emirates, as you mentioned. This is their version of a state.

 

[M Sport]

I guess at the end of the day, it depends on your definitions.

If a Nation and a Country are the same thing, then Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland are most definitely not nations. As the nationality (represented by a passport) of their citizens is British (ie. of the UK of GB & NI).

However, it could be said that they are 'countries within a nation'. If this is the case, then your argument is invalid anyway, as Nations should be represented at the Olympic Games.

Australia has a Prime Minister (and a national government), Australia is in the olympics. The UK has a Prime Minister, the UK has a PM (and national government) and is in the olympics.

Forget Olympics, Prime Ministers, etc. It's as simple as this.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island is a Unitary State and a Country.

Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Island are countries.

Great Britain is an Island.

Anyone bring the USA into the argument needs to brush up on the difference between a federal state and a unitary state,

Thats all.

 

[Tuarts]

My understanding and learning is that whlist England, Scotland, Wales and Northen Ireland can be classified technically as nations they can not be classified as countries. Where United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) is a country. Wales and Northern Ireland could be classified as prinicpalities as well...

 

[abbaskip]

Basically, for all international purposes, outside of Rugby and Football (and the Comm Games if you call them international), the UK is treated as the country.

The UK is the EU member, the UN member, the IOC member. Are there three bigger international bodies in the world? The UK also has the Prime Minister, the Army, Navy and Air Force.

I know no one has replied, but I have written half of this already, and it doesn't seem to be getting in. What more evidence do you need. Next time you disagree, please use some constructive arguments, not just "England is a country, not the UK".

 

[Ferminal]

I don't see the definition of nation/country/state being subject to some measure of autonomy. For me it's whatever it says on your birth certificate/citizenship certificate/passport - that is your nationality, and the only country you live in.

The SARs of the PRC are highly autonomous, but are still no more than regions within one country, China.

 

[Andy99]

Basically, for all international purposes, outside of Rugby and Football (and the Comm Games if you call them international), the UK is treated as the country.

The UK is the EU member, the UN member, the IOC member. Are there three bigger international bodies in the world? The UK also has the Prime Minister, the Army, Navy and Air Force.

I know no one has replied, but I have written half of this already, and it doesn't seem to be getting in. What more evidence do you need. Next time you disagree, please use some constructive arguments, not just "England is a country, not the UK".

Exactly.

Some people are just retards. There are many things they will never understand.

 

[Tuarts]

The UK is the EU member, the UN member, the IOC member. Are there three bigger international bodies in the world?

FIFA.

too short

 

[abbaskip]

Anyone bring the USA into the argument needs to brush up on the difference between a federal state and a unitary state,

I wasn't using the US as anything more than an example that having separate governments inside it, means in no way that the greater body isn't a nation/country itself.

The UAE, Australia and the US are all federations. Not just the US. I mentioned all three, not just the US. I understand that the UK is Unitary. This actually means that the smaller parts (in this case the 'countries' of England, Wales, NI and Scotland) technicaly have LESS power than in a federation. In a federation the power split between states/emirates etc and the national body is set in stone (and is hard to change). In a unitary state, the soveriegn state has the power to delegate or control what it likes.

 

[abbaskip]

FIFA.

too short

Which is exactly why the FAs of England, Scotland, Wales and NI are scared to put a combined side in the Olympics - in the fear that FIFA will force them to combine their national teams.

 

[Tuarts]

Mind you (wow is this going off-tpoic) if FIFA do that then the same needs to be applied to all those FA's who have teams competing as nations and are under other countries (eg some carribean teams who have autonomy but fall under 'France').

Still its never a clear cut case in each individual case.

 

[abbaskip]

Mind you (wow is this going off-tpoic) if FIFA do that then the same needs to be applied to all those FA's who have teams competing as nations and are under other countries (eg some carribean teams who have autonomy but fall under 'France').

Still its never a clear cut case in each individual case.

Yeah, and the countries that are basically nothing more than self governing countries that are 'owned' by China. It's not the legal definition, but it's essentially how it works. And there is a few of them.

Then there is places like Taiwan (ie. the Democratic Republic of China) who aren't even accepted into the UN as a nation. As PR China still claim ownership.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Thanks for clearing that up for me guys! You can understand my confusion especially with the different definetions of what is and is not a country and some of you guys arguing.

 

[53 x 11]

My passport says British Citizen, not English, Manx or Scottish.

 

[Ferminal]

Then there is places like Taiwan (ie. the Democratic Republic of China) who aren't even accepted into the UN as a nation. As PR China still claim ownership.

Funny how they held "China's" post-war permanent spot on the security council for a couple of decades even though they had been overthrown on the mainland. They basically swapped places as official nations. This caught me out at a trivia night once as the question was "Which international organisation did the PRC become a member of in 1971", UN was the only realistic answer but knowing full well that "China", as an allied victor was one of the five permanent members on the security council it didn't make any sense.

It was only some time later that I learned about what actually happened at the UN between PRC/ROC.

Is the RoC/Chinese Taipei/Taiwan what you would call a nationless state?

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

I think any country where 90% of the population live in poverty should not be spending millions on a sporting event. Simple as that! I for one, wont be watching.

poverty has mostly to do with india's religion not with poor national management. most poor people actually think they deserve it

 

[abbaskip]

Funny how they held "China's" post-war permanent spot on the security council for a couple of decades even though they had been overthrown on the mainland. They basically swapped places as official nations. This caught me out at a trivia night once as the question was "Which international organisation did the PRC become a member of in 1971", UN was the only realistic answer but knowing full well that "China", as an allied victor was one of the five permanent members on the security council it didn't make any sense.

It was only some time later that I learned about what actually happened at the UN between PRC/ROC.

Is the RoC/Chinese Taipei/Taiwan what you would call a nationless state?

Yeah, the other nations kept PR our whilst they could

Then it probably became a bit dangerous for them to keep sticking up for the under dog (Taiwan)...time to suck up to the bully!

Hong Kong is another interesting one. It represents itself at loads of sporting events, but has never been a country. It has been a British Colony, a Chinese Administrative Region, but never really a country.

I know it gets really confusing in passports now. People from Hong Kong don't get a national passport, but a SAR Passport. This passport means they're citizens of PR China, but entitled to live in Hong Kong.

Really the British thing isn't a very complex case at all, compared to some places!

 

[El Pistolero]

poverty has mostly to do with india's religion not with poor national management. most poor people actually think they deserve it

India's religion doesn't make people poor.

In Belgium for example, the poor people also thought they deserved it in the 19th century. It was like that in most countries were the industrialization began. Religion doesn't make one poor, it only justifies it.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

India's religion doesn't make people poor.

In Belgium for example, the poor people also thought they deserved it in the 19th century. It was like that in most countries were the industrialization began. Religion doesn't make one poor, it only justifies it.

no it does. when people believe they deserve poverty then how are they supposed to climb out of it when they don't want to?

I once met a dutch man who lives in india and he told me one time that the country is so poor but in mental wellbeing the country isn't much less than europe, maybe even opposite. he is very poor and lives sober(not as in drunk) live as a budhist in delhi.

 

[The Hitch]

poverty has mostly to do with india's religion not with poor national management. most poor people actually think they deserve it

And what religion would that be?

Islam?
Sikhism?
Judaism?
Hinduism?
Buddhism?
Christianity?
Zoroastrianism ?

(Delibrately arranged to look like stairs )

All of these religions represent part of Indias poor. Sure Hinduism is the biggest religion but we are still talking about millions of Sikhs, Christians Muslims as well.

So are you saying that religion in general helps cause poverty? Because if it was just Hinduism why are the majority of Indian Muslims and Indian sikhs poor as well?

Also since we are talking about Religion in India justifying poverty Mother Theresa thought poverty was a gift from God. What religion was she? Certainatly not hindu.

 

[Tuarts]

Interesting video and transcript about media pandering the flames of the "security threat"

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3023099.htm

 

[Spare Tyre]

Interesting video and transcript about media pandering the flames of the "security threat"

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3023099.htm

Thanks for this. I love Media Watch. It should be on our "National Treasure" list.

 

[El Pistolero]

no it does. when people believe they deserve poverty then how are they supposed to climb out of it when they don't want to?

I once met a dutch man who lives in india and he told me one time that the country is so poor but in mental wellbeing the country isn't much less than europe, maybe even opposite. he is very poor and lives sober(not as in drunk) live as a budhist in delhi.

Sustaining poverty doesn't mean the same as creating poverty. And it's not like religion is the only thing sustaining poverty, far from it.

How to get out of poverty? Pretty much the same way how most European countries got out of the poverty in the 19th-20th century. It will be a long process.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't see the definition of nation/country/state being subject to some measure of autonomy. For me it's whatever it says on your birth certificate/citizenship certificate/passport - that is your nationality, and the only country you live in.

The SARs of the PRC are highly autonomous, but are still no more than regions within one country, China.

My nationality is not united kingdomish, its british

 

[liamclarke4]

yes there alot of politics in this event but can we please make this about the race