Irish mercenaries, unionist coat trailers and the Bard of Dunclug

[delboy]

I have no problem with the British Isles as a geographic designation that has no political implications. It wouldn't be uncommon for a group of islands to be designated by the name of the biggest one. (Please don't ask me ...)

Agreed, geography shouldn't be used to map out politcal boundaries.

Ehhh ... that's not what I said, so I'll take your sentence as two separate statements, the second of which is self evident (despite what Sarah Palin may think).

Fair enough, it was meant as two seperate statements anyway.

[bennydorano]

Northwest European Archipelago it is then!  A shinner concoction I believe?? Was it McElduff who tried to bring it's usage into the mainstream?

[delboy]

I have no problem with the British Isles as a geographic designation that has no political implications. It wouldn't be uncommon for a group of islands to be designated by the name of the biggest one. (Please don't ask me ...)

Agreed, geography shouldn't be used to map out politcal boundaries.

No, and neither should ignoring the wishes of the vast majority of the Irish people in the 1918 general election

That has one problem though in that the irish 1918 general election was part of the greater 1918 United kingdom election, so you could argue that you would have required the vast majority of the total populace of the UK for that vote.

[red hander]

I have no problem with the British Isles as a geographic designation that has no political implications. It wouldn't be uncommon for a group of islands to be designated by the name of the biggest one. (Please don't ask me ...)

Agreed, geography shouldn't be used to map out politcal boundaries.

No, and neither should ignoring the wishes of the vast majority of the Irish people in the 1918 general election

That has one problem though in that the irish 1918 general election was part of the greater 1918 United kingdom election, so you could argue that you would have required the vast majority of the total populace of the UK for that vote.

You're completely ignoring the the home rule vote passed in the house of commons by the representatives of the total populace of the uk which was opposed by the threat of violence and of mutiny of the british army, the self-same heroes who provoked this thread in the first place ... democracy, eh? any wonder people become 'terrorists'

Besides, it's the Western European Isles anyway

[Hardy]

What does Iceland think about that?

[delboy]

I have no problem with the British Isles as a geographic designation that has no political implications. It wouldn't be uncommon for a group of islands to be designated by the name of the biggest one. (Please don't ask me ...)

Agreed, geography shouldn't be used to map out politcal boundaries.

No, and neither should ignoring the wishes of the vast majority of the Irish people in the 1918 general election

That has one problem though in that the irish 1918 general election was part of the greater 1918 United kingdom election, so you could argue that you would have required the vast majority of the total populace of the UK for that vote.

You're completely ignoring the the home rule vote passed in the house of commons by the representatives of the total populace of the uk which was opposed by the threat of violence and of mutiny of the british army, the self-same heroes who provoked this thread in the first place ... democracy, eh? any wonder people become 'terrorists'

Besides, it's the Western European Isles anyway

As far as i know any home rule votes that passed through the commons were defeated in the lords, or am i wrong?

[Maguire01]

Well my rationale was that Great Britain and Britain aren't necessarily the same thing. The British Empire wasn't confined to GB and those countries and cities within the Empire were regarded as 'British', were they not?

I am not too hot on the history of British Empire, "Calcutta was a British city"  somehow doesn't ring any bells.

There are many examples of such usage - the term 'British India' being one - there are numerous others. The following colonies are/were also widely regarded as 'British', even though they are outside of Great Britain:
Falkland Islands
Gibraltar
Hong Kong

Obviously, from a personal point of view, i see Belfast as an Irish city - i'm just pointing out that there is logic/rationale for those who call it a 'British' city, despite the fact that it is not on the GB island.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

Well my rationale was that Great Britain and Britain aren't necessarily the same thing.

They absolutely are, the one and the same thing. In antiquity, the Romans or some such called Britain 'Great' to distinguish it from a 'Little' Britain. That particular moniker (the 'Great') fell into complete disuse, until some insufferable jingoists in Victorian times thought it an opportune and splendidly appropriate time to resurrect that tag, even though it's of no functional use whatsoever, but gave the frightful tosspots a warm feeling of grandeur and superiority (and momentarily took their minds off little boys).

[Maguire01]

Well my rationale was that Great Britain and Britain aren't necessarily the same thing.

They absolutely are, the one and the same thing.

Yes, okay, i didn't put that across well - see my more recent post above, being the argument that something doesn't have to be in Britain (or Great Britain) to be 'British'. I suppose being British meant/means being ultimately controlled from/by Britain.

[Main Street]

The SNP´s leader was on about the "Arc of Solvency" a while ago, Iceland Norway and Scotland (no one ever remembers the Faroes).

After October, Labour retorted about the "Arc of Insolvency" - seriously píssing off the solvent Norwegians.

[armaghniac]

Kolkata was a "British" city in the sense that the British invaded it and then "owned" it. Belfast is "British" in this sense, I suppose. And I suppose as as a slave is owned by its master and often took his name then its people are "British" too.

[Tonto]

I have no problem with the British Isles as a geographic designation that has no political implications. It wouldn't be uncommon for a group of islands to be designated by the name of the biggest one. (Please don't ask me ...)

Agreed, geography shouldn't be used to map out politcal boundaries.

No, and neither should ignoring the wishes of the vast majority of the Irish people in the 1918 general election

Aye, I know - and the bastards partitioned Ulster!

We want the occupied 3 back again!!

[lynchbhoy]

I have no problem with the British Isles as a geographic designation that has no political implications. It wouldn't be uncommon for a group of islands to be designated by the name of the biggest one. (Please don't ask me ...)

Agreed, geography shouldn't be used to map out politcal boundaries.

No, and neither should ignoring the wishes of the vast majority of the Irish people in the 1918 general election

Aye, I know - and the b**tards partitioned Ulster!

We want the occupied 3 back again!!

thats actually quite funny !


anyhow
all this talk if uk, britain etc

what about any sightings of lord lucan or the bard of sunclug, are they both escaping the law atop of shergar right now ?

has the 'inquest' into whoever hacked onto the bards (unprotected) computer been tracked down yet?

has the bard admitted that he posted the previous numerous sectarian quotes onto this board yet ?

[red hander]

I have no problem with the British Isles as a geographic designation that has no political implications. It wouldn't be uncommon for a group of islands to be designated by the name of the biggest one. (Please don't ask me ...)

Agreed, geography shouldn't be used to map out politcal boundaries.

No, and neither should ignoring the wishes of the vast majority of the Irish people in the 1918 general election

That has one problem though in that the irish 1918 general election was part of the greater 1918 United kingdom election, so you could argue that you would have required the vast majority of the total populace of the UK for that vote.

You're completely ignoring the the home rule vote passed in the house of commons by the representatives of the total populace of the uk which was opposed by the threat of violence and of mutiny of the british army, the self-same heroes who provoked this thread in the first place ... democracy, eh? any wonder people become 'terrorists'

Besides, it's the Western European Isles anyway

As far as i know any home rule votes that passed through the commons were defeated in the lords, or am i wrong?

An unelected body of pro-unionist toffs and chinless bastards sodomised thru the classrooms of eton ... my understanding is at the time mutiny in the british army was a capital offence ... did any of the heroes of the curragh receive a smack on the wrists let alone a bullet thru the heart for their obvious treachery?  The same goes for the 'loyalists' of ulster who imported weapons to oppose the democratic wishes of a parliament they claimed loyalty to... was that not treachery too?

[his holiness nb]

So have the police moved to arrest the board member responsible for the whole bard fiasco??

I hear arrests are imminent.