The uk

[tankmank 853]

 here is a little about the united kingdom

The City of London is one of the largest financial centres in the world, with the London Stock Exchange, the London International Financial Futures and Options Exchange, and the Lloyd's of London insurance market all based here. The City also has the largest concentration of foreign bank branches in the world. ^{[citation needed]} In the past decade, a rival financial centre in London has grown in the Docklands area, with HSBC, Citigroup and Barclays Bank all relocating their head offices here. The Scottish capital, Edinburgh also has a large financial sector, the sixth largest in Europe  The uk in 2004 was the 21st most poulated country and the 33rd densist per kilometre now the poulation is 60 million people.   This map is of the brittish empire in 1897 ( the red is brittish)

   ^{If you have any other info do share}

 

[Micah 16]

!!!!

Is this a continuation of the British Empire and the English language?

You make me laugh so much tankmank.

I do have a real question though, the British Empire wasn't the largest empire, correct? I believe it was the Mongolian Empire that was even larger... the difference is that the UK was all around the world while the Mongolian Empire was only in Asia. I'm not saying that you said that it was the largest, I just thought I heard someone say that in another thread.

[tankmank 853]

ah ok

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

You know that the sun never set on the British Empire.  It couldn't be trusted out of sight.

[GingerBlokey 30]

Viva UK!

[jvlm.123 0]

I believe your getting the U.K. and the British Empire mixed up...?

[Compromise 1]

Yes the British Empire was a historical achievement but we are in the 21st century now and these countries deserve and mostly have there independence.

[Meg 368]

I often asked "odd" questions in history class and, usually, they didn't have answers that made sense to me so there are many things I still don't understand.

A common question of mine is "What were they thinking?"  I like to understand where people are coming from.

Originally posted by: Compromise Yes the British Empire was a historical achievement but we are in the 21st century now and these countries deserve and mostly have there independence.quote>

 

Was it the thinking that these countries did not deserve their independence back then?

If not, why not?

If so, how was the empire an "acheivement"?

The answer I got in class was usually "this is just what happened".  Okay, that's what happened.   I'm more interested in why it happened.

[callagrafx 3]

I always ask myself "what were they thinking?" when the British colonised America lol...

Serious note: That's the problem with an Empire, it turns around and bites you on the bum when the locals feel repressed, even if they weren't (and that's a topic for another thread)....BUT, without any of the Empires that have shaped the face of this little blue planet, we would have less cultural diversity and tolerance that we actually have.

And the point that Ski highlighted from Compromise, Yes, the thinking probably WAS that those Countries did not deserve (maybe the wrong word I think) independence, merely that to give independence was to lose power, which was infinitely more important to the Imperialists. An interesting note, although the British called it the Empire, they never made the leap to creating an "Emperor".

Countries became independent when they fought for it and won...Except for India, where the British were totally out-classed by the simple act of non-aggression (a lesson sadly lost on 21st century leaders).

What's a more interesting fact about the UK is the fact that it has not been invaded by a foreign country since 1066, despite wars with Napoleon, Philip II of Spain and Adolf himself. If the British have anything to be proud of, it is that.

[tankmank 853]

there is more US dollars traded in London than New York, and more Euros traded there than every city in Europe combined.^[7]The centrepiece of the public transport network is the London Underground, the oldest metro system in the world, upon which nearly 1 billion journeys are made each year

It has historically been known as one of the most ethnically diverse cities in the world, and this continues in the modern day, with more than 300 languages spoken and 50 non-indigenous communities with a population of more than 10,000 living in London.^[9] London has large South Asian, Black and Chinese communities, which are all generally situated in certain areas. In the 2001 census, it was shown that 40% of London's population classified themselves as non-British, with 29% classifying themselves as "non-white".

[jvlm.123 0]

Why do you keep pasting this from Wikipedia?

[The boy formerly known as Evil Muzz 27]

Some stupid reporter on the radio yesterday said that "England has a seat on the UN Security Council"... If you don't see something wrong with that staement, please contact myself or 6underground, we would be happy to tell you EXACTLY what is wrong with it!

[callagrafx 3]

It must be a sofa then, as Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland all have a seat too, sort of like the Simpsons

[PhilsCafe 8]

^ now that's confusing : UK is England (not exclusively) but England isn't the UK... Northern Ireland is Northern Ireland and the UK as represented in the security council actually should be the UK and Northern Ireland... No wonder you're driving on the wrong side of the road LOL.

Now that was completely off topic.

[callagrafx 3]

Actually, the full title is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", where Great Britain is the Island comprising Scotland, England and Wales...

[6underground 11]

Bah, you guys. It was only a matter of time, but i have to comment here. Basically the only thing that would make me 100% happy about the UK, is either the independence of Wales and the reunification of NI with the Republic of Ireland, and/or the Independence of Scotland (because lets face it, at least Scotland had the democratic choice to become unified with England. Ours (Wales) was ripped away.

Either that or complete devolution of the U.K, with each country (I will never buy into that "Wales is a principality mallarky, utter rubbish) has it's own parliament and is freely able to make and run it's own affairs without having to travel all the way to England 9Westminster) to do it. The Queen would likely remain head of state (because lets face it, Wales no longer has a royal family since they were all butchered), and the UK would be more like an inner commonwealth alliance, rather than a political construct.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

6underground:  If you would like a federation like ours (Canada), you have to have a lot more tolerance than you have shown in the past.  We are still engaged in in-fighting with our minority groups (the "First Nations" and the Inuit), as well as with the Quebecois.  However, we have this enormous georgraphy that can absorb a lot of abuse, and the distances are great enough that it is hard to have an intimate fight with ourselves. 

It really is interesting to us, as we have mostly English heritage with a solid admixture of French, that we get along fine with the Royal Family, but all kinds of people in the UK seem to want to do away with them.  If you didn't have the Queen, what would you do for a head of state?  The PM has too much on his plate as it is?

[6underground 11]

6underground:  If you would like a federation like ours (Canada), you have to have a lot more tolerance than you have shown in the past.quote>

What do you mean by this, have the Welsh people been intolerant somehow? I was actually thinking of an inner commonwealth, but they arent to dissimilar i think.

We are still engaged in in-fighting with our minority groups (the "First Nations" and the Inuit), as well as with the Quebecois.quote>

There is no real in-fighting in the UK between the different nations, just brooding national rivalries. I've been sening alot of individual national patriotism recently (the past year or two), especially with England, lots of English flag flying and stuff.

If you didn't have the Queen, what would you do for a head of state?  The PM has too much on his plate as it is?quote>

To me, the Queen serves no real purpose. Except as a tourist attraction and historical sentiment. A president would work just as good for the UK, perhaps even better. That may shock some. But i believe power is vested to those that are elected, not given away to those that are born into it. Who didnt strive to deserve it.

I wrote an article here, if you care to look: "A UK to be proud of"

[jvlm.123 0]

Just to clear up these confusing terms -

U.K. - A nation comprising of four constituent countries (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales).

Great Britain - An island comprising of three of these countries (England, Scotland and Wales).

Northern Ireland - A constituent country that takes up roughly between 1/6 and 1/5 of the island of Ireland, it is part of the U.K.

Ulster - An ancient province of Ireland, comprising of all the counties in Northern Ireland (Antrim, Armagh, Derry, Down, Fermanagh and Tyrone) and three in the Republic of Ireland (Cavan, Donegal and Monaghan). It is often used, wrongly, when referring to Northern Ireland (especially by Unionists). The other provinces are - Connacht, Leinster and Munster (I'm sure you Welsh people know about people from Munster! ).

Republic of Ireland - An independent presidential republic that takes up the remaining 5/6 or 4/5 of the island of Ireland. Is is completely independent and takes up 26 of the 32 counties of Ireland. It has no link with the U.K.

British Isles - The name given to the set of islands that include Great Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man and numerous other islands. It is highly controversial, with many people (including Boris Yelstin ) believing that the British Isles is one country.

This diagram is good at explaining the current situation (sorry that it shows England and Wales as one country).

[callagrafx 3]

^ Of course the Welsh people are intolerant...that's what makes them Welsh LOL (j/k)

There is one simple reason why Wales and Scotland will never truly devolve, and that is Economy. Neither Wales nor Scotland produce enough income, either by taxes or by GDP to allow them to be independent. It's a simple matter of numbers of people...the populations of both countries prohibit self sustainment, largely due to topography and infrastructure, and 6under I agree that although Wales is technically a Principality, it is more of a Country in it's own right than Scotland, because it retains it's national language. I can see both sides here, as I'm an Englishman in Wales (cue music).

Sport is the divider here...although I find it baffling that Wales and Scotland will support ANY country playing against England, yet the English will ALWAYS steadfastly support Wales, Scotland or NI.

Oh, and I agree with your sentiments re the Royals, but a "President" is unnecessary, as there is nothing wrong with the Office of the Prime Minister (not necessarily the person) as Head of State (do you want to end up like the USA?)

Last but not least, the reunification of Ireland.....Now isn't this a can of worms? The politics here are unreal. If only it were as clear cut but the problem here is you have a divided NI in a divided Ireland...The Republicans want unification, the Loyalists want to remain part of the UK..and they've all still got weapons, despite what they claim (or they can obtain them again)...so what would happen if the two were to reunify would be ANOTHER Irish civil war....The biggest mistake EVER made by the UK government of the time was the partition of Ireland (and to a lesser degree, Cyprus)..Division leads to sides...leads to a punch up...leads to war. A lot of you are probably too young to remember the horrors of bomb attacks by the IRA (I was caught up in the Victoria bombing in Feb 1991) and this sort of thing WILL happen again...that's why there is still no answer to the 'Ireland Question'

edit: @jvlm.123: You forgot the Inner, Outer Hebrides, the Orkneys and the Shetlands

[jvlm.123 0]

You clearly haven't been to Ireland (North or South) in a long time, have you callagrafx? I live in a town around 70% Catholic - 25% Protestant - 5% Other/Not Specified and I am a Catholic, but I have Protestant friends, I've been inside Protestant schools, I live with Protestants as neighbours and I get along well with them. My town's town centre was torn apart by a bomb in August 1998 and left 29 dead - including Catholics, Protestants and Mormons. Since then, we've all been united against terrorism (from any party) and their has been great change in attitudes and beliefs everywhere in Ireland. If Ireland is reunited, I don't think there will be that big a deal, probably an attitude with some Unionists, but they'll be told by both the British and Irish governments, "You love Britain so much, so and live there!". And the days of IRA / UVF terrorist attacks are over... They are long gone at this stage. There's a bigger problem here now - house prices!

EDIT - This post changed my title to "Local Yokel".

[6underground 11]

Thanks for the feedback guys!

There is one simple reason why Wales and Scotland will never truly devolve, and that is Economy. Neither Wales nor Scotland produce enough income, either by taxes or by GDP to allow them to be independent. It's a simple matter of numbers of people...the populations of both countries prohibit self sustainment, largely due to topography and infrastructure, and 6under I agree that although Wales is technically a Principality, it is more of a Country in it's own right than Scotland, because it retains it's national language. I can see both sides here, as I'm an Englishman in Wales (cue music).quote>

There is however precidents that wholeheartedly disagree with you, the following for example. In a report in 2002 i believe, a Welsh Assembly Government report, investigated into the possibility of self-sustainment, the report did indicate that self-sufficiency was/is possible. Here's another example: Luxembourg has a population of rougly 1 million people, and is far smaller than Wales, yet it is a country, and is able to survive as such. I'm not implying that if Wales were to become indpendent, that it would be an easy ride. Far from it, but self-sufficiency is most certainly possible. Especially with examples of Luxemborug and others.

Sport is the divider here...although I find it baffling that Wales and Scotland will support ANY country playing against England, yet the English will ALWAYS steadfastly support Wales, Scotland or NI.quote>

Most of the time thats just said jokingly, just like sheep****** is for us Welsh, sometimes it's said playfully, as to state clearly which nationality they are, in some other cases it's most certainly historical.

Oh, and I agree with your sentiments re the Royals, but a "President" is unnecessary, as there is nothing wrong with the Office of the Prime Minister (not necessarily the person) as Head of State (do you want to end up like the USA?)quote>

I dont mind what title is really chosen, as long as he/she is elected. Although just because the term "president" implies it's American, it isn't. the term may well be popularised as being American, but it isnt. It's roots can be traced all the way back to Greece i believe. It's like saying every prime minister around the world  must be likened to the British system, or saying that the French President is like the U.S one.

The term may be the same, but who has the title is what matters.

As for Ireland, it's not really my place to say. However, they are my celtic bretheren. So, they deserve to a republic that takes up all of their landmass, to be honest, such days are over for the UK. If you think about, any forced union fails. The Roman empire fell with its many subjucations, the British Empire also fell more recently the USSR. The only reason that it has not happened in the UK yet is due to our size and integration.

[jvlm.123 0]

Do you mean integration in terms of social, political or economical (or all)? Also, would you classify the European Union as a forced empire, on Brussels' part?

[callagrafx 3]

Well reasoned arguments there 6under...however, it's not just population, but population distribution...the infrastructure in Wales is quite abyssmal, especially the further north you go (4 hours to drive to Aberystwyth from Cardiff is ridiculous) and as such, self sustainment is harder to achieve, especially as there is no real industry left in Wales to generate tax revenue. The costs involved in independence are massive, and it would be a generation before any revenue generated for actual government were to be plus numbers and the likelihood is income and other taxes like Council Tax would increase dramatically to account for this shortfall, causing a massive surge of anti-government feeling and probably mass migration to England where no such rises would exist. The price of "freedom" is sometimes too high.

Wales also has, as part of the UK, great deal of protection, both economic and military. Could Wales afford an Army/Navy/Airforce too? Luxembourg attained self sustainment through the simple fact that 1 million people condensed in a small area means high population/land mass ratio, which means cheaper infrastructure and "management" costs.

I'm not saying it's impossible, just very unlikely.

As for presidents, they are treated like royalty because they are perceived as "the government"...Prime Minister as a title has a much more "toned down" image (India is a great example of this, and they are the largest democracy on Earth)...

This is becoming a great debate

@jvlm.123: Actually, I've been working there for 5 years and have got to know the politics quite well, and my point had NOTHING to do with religion (that fight will continue regardless) it is to do with POLITICAL alliances...Whilst the two may be to an extent intertwined, the main issue preventing reunification IS Republican/Loyalist division. Whilst every reasoned human being abhors terrorism, there are those, still active today, who are willing to use violence to achieve their own ends...They are far from "long gone"..Do you really believe that? Do you think after a lifetime of terror acts, a member of the IRA is just going to retire? Settle down in Belfast and get a job in an office? You are not old enough to know the real horror of terrorism and for that I am grateful, as you are able to live your life in relative peace and can look back on history with hindsight without knowing what it is like to be caught up in a bomb blast.

[jvlm.123 0]

Originally posted by: callagrafx

@jvlm.123: Actually, I've been working there for 5 years and have got to know the politics quite well, and my point had NOTHING to do with religion (that fight will continue regardless) it is to do with POLITICAL alliances...Whilst the two may be to an extent intertwined, the main issue preventing reunification IS Republican/Loyalist division. Whilst every reasoned human being abhors terrorism, there are those, still active today, who are willing to use violence to achieve their own ends...They are far from "long gone"..Do you really believe that? Do you think after a lifetime of terror acts, a member of the IRA is just going to retire? Settle down in Belfast and get a job in an office? You are not old enough to know the real horror of terrorism and for that I am grateful, as you are able to live your life in relative peace and can look back on history with hindsight without knowing what it is like to be caught up in a bomb blast.quote>

 

I WAS in a bomb blast - the worst in the Troubles, when I was only 7 (I'm 14 now). I was lucky not to be hurt at all, I was around 250 metres from the blast, so I saw all the damage. And, on the topic of political factions - religion has almost everything to do with it, have you ever heard of a Catholic Unionist, or a Protestant Nationalist? And, I know what you mean, I am lucky in the sense my town has no danger spots and that everyone can live together.

Also, this IS a great debate!

@callagrafx - Do you think that a United Ireland is a possibilty - just out of curiosity?

[callagrafx 3]

@callagrafx - Do you think that a United Ireland is a possibilty - just out of curiosity?quote>

I really hope so....but I think it will take a few generations of Irish not killing Irish to achieve it...tolerance (religious and political) will take years to develop, but once it does, Ireland will have so much more to offer the world.

[jvlm.123 0]

I agree with you on that. One thing that has been great for Ireland was the economic booms of the 90s and again in 2001-Present. This led to an influx of immigrants, and now an estimated 10% of the Irish population (around 580,000) are meant to be born outside of Ireland or the U.K. This has led to people everywhere becoming much more tolerant of other cultures - for years Ireland was an area of emigration, now the trend is reversed. In Dublin, for example, one can hear hundreds of languages - just like in London, shop in a Chinese supermarket, go to a Greek bar, eat in a Russian restaurant, etc... I think this has led to the Irish themselves being more tolerant, and now people are willing to "bridge the gap". So, yes, tolerance is coming, though at a slower rate than some would like...

Sorry, how did I end up talking about Ireland in a thread about the U.K.?

[6underground 11]

Do you mean integration in terms of social, political or economical (or all)? Also, would you classify the European Union as a forced empire, on Brussels' part?quote>

All, more political and social than anything else. the edges between English and Welsh are slightly blurred on the edges, and there are people out there who have somewhat of an identity crisis, when it comes to the whole mind-boggling Welsh/UK/GB-where the heck am i?!

As for the EU, no i dont think the EU is a forced "empire" for the following reasons:

A] Any EU member can leave at any time (somehow i doubt British centrists would EVER let Wales go)

B] European nations had the choice to join, Wales and Ireland didnt. Their freedom was taken away from them and was then subjucated to draconian laws, which have been echoed through the centuries.

C] "Empire" wouldnt be a word i'd chose to describe the EU, there is no country in the EU which is the nation, where everyone does as it says. EU nations for the most part have equal say and equal choice. Empires do not, in empires the mother nation says "jump" and the others say "how high?"

Well reasoned arguments there 6under...however, it's not just population, but population distribution...the infrastructure in Wales is quite abyssmal, especially the further north you go (4 hours to drive to Aberystwyth from Cardiff is ridiculous) and as such, self sustainment is harder to achieve, especially as there is no real industry left in Wales to generate tax revenue.quote>

True, and who do you think is to blame for that? Let me put it this way, Wales was the first industrial nation in the world. We supplied 300 million gallons of water to England and the Welsh saw no benefits from it. During the "coal revoultion" the south wales valleys especially, were exploited. Cardiff became the number 1 world exporter of coal during that time period (of which coal was essential). Where did all the funds go? Certainly not alot to Wales.

Perhaps the fact is, Wales has been exploited time and time again for resources, and the Welsh have historically seen nothing back from it, no or little investment in stark contrast to the sheer amount of resources that benefitted our larger neighbour. Take Tryweryn for example, it was a small rural valley community in north Wales. What happened you asked?

Liverpool bought the land right out from under them, despite protests, police forced people out of their homes, cemented the church graveyard, and flooded the entire valley and village underwater. Where was the democracy there? Or the justice? Liverpool apologised decades later of course, by which stage resentment had already grew.

Also, you forget the benefits Wales provides to England. We have a HUGE surplus of water we provide to the midlands and the Liverpool area. Much more than is required for Wales's mere 3 million population. If independence does occur, England would also suffer. Think about it, theres already a hosepipe ban in the south east of England right now!

he costs involved in independence are massive, and it would be a generation before any revenue generated for actual government were to be plus numbers and the likelihood is income and other taxes like Council Tax would increase dramatically to account for this shortfall, causing a massive surge of anti-government feeling and probably mass migration to England where no such rises would exist. The price of "freedom" is sometimes too high.quote>

Perhaps, but there is also another option rather than independence and thats an inner commonwealth, a redefined UK if you will.

Wales also has, as part of the UK, great deal of protection, both economic and military. Could Wales afford an Army/Navy/Airforce too?quote>

In the report i said earlier, it indicated that Wales already has a much larger military size than would be required if we were independent (in terms of current government spending in Wales). Also, who would want to invade Wales? All we got is sheep and Gavin Henson ;p

and yes, good debate indeed!

[callagrafx 3]

I can see you're an extremist Nationalist lmao!!!

Also, who would want to invade Wales? All we got is sheep and Gavin Henson ;pquote>

Don't forget Charlotte Church, she's a real fox oh yeah, and Boggy's here too (probably worrying those sheep)!

[6underground 11]

LMAO, I dunno about nationalist... More like Equalist . If there is such a word!