UK General Election 2017

[Beskar]

By Union, I was using short-hand of "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" the name of our nation. The territories of Cornwall, Devon and Northern Ireland all fall within these boundaries. I was not discussing legal entities or countries which consist of the union, but the territories that do.

An example of a territory that doesn't would be the Isle of Mann or the Channel Islands (Crown dependencies, not part of the United Kingdom), neither of these are however being discussed.

The fact there is even an argument is at best, pedant, at worst, foolish.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Doesn't address my question. I would say that while Cornwall is not a constituent of the Treaty of Union, it is a constituent of one of the constituents of the Treaty of Union, and so as a subset of that constituent is indeed "a part of" (or similar designation) the UK. Just as both the city of New York and the State of New York are part of the United States, even though New York City is neither a founding member nor a state member at all.

With respect, I addressed your question - you just didn't understand the answer.

Nah, we're talking about whether it's correct, for example, to say that "London is a part of the United Kingdom" or "the Union".

It's a terrible thing to have to discuss but we're here.

London is part of England - and the capital of the UK as a whole. If you disassembled the Union into its Constituent parts London would still be part of England. So, no, London is not "A part of the Union" although you might colloquially say it "belonged to the Union" in a greater sense.

So it is part of England, correct? Which is in turn, part of the Union...

It is not "A part of the Union" in the same way as Northern Ireland. Remember, Northern Ireland is a separate country and not a region of the UK.

I'm not talking about legal status. PVC took issue with some semantics in Beskar's post, and I disputed his interpretation.

I hope you don't think I'm saying Cornwall should secede or whatever it is that concerns you. So yes, we're being smart-arses.

In politics, especially identity politics, semantics are important. Are you aware that there is actually a Cornish secessionist movement?

Beskar was comparing Devon-and-Cornwall which is a loosely concepted region that possibly doesn't include all of Cornwall, possibly includes the Scillies, with Northern Ireland which is a separate country. If you refer back to Beskar's post he says "Devon and Cornwall" which are two counties in South-Western England and may or may not be the same as "Devon-and-Cornwall".

By Union, I was using short-hand of "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" the name of our nation. The territories of Cornwall, Devon and Northern Ireland all fall within these boundaries. I was not discussing legal entities or countries which consist of the union, but the territories that do.

An example of a territory that doesn't would be the Isle of Mann or the Channel Islands (Crown dependencies, not part of the United Kingdom), neither of these are however being discussed.

The fact there is even an argument is at best, pedant, at worst, foolish.

Cornwall is a Duchy (which currently functions as a County), Devon is a County and Northern Ireland is a Country. Devon-and-Cornwall is a region. For extra complexity, Cornwall technically includes large swathes of Devon as part of the Duchy.

You are comparing Apples and Oranges, possibly because you do not live here.

Please, though, tell people in the other parts of the UK how to conceive of their identity, see how far it gets you in a pub down here.

[Montmorency]

With respect, I addressed your question - you just didn't understand the answer.



London is part of England - and the capital of the UK as a whole. If you disassembled the Union into its Constituent parts London would still be part of England. So, no, London is not "A part of the Union" although you might colloquially say it "belonged to the Union" in a greater sense.



It is not "A part of the Union" in the same way as Northern Ireland. Remember, Northern Ireland is a separate country and not a region of the UK.



In politics, especially identity politics, semantics are important. Are you aware that there is actually a Cornish secessionist movement?

Beskar was comparing Devon-and-Cornwall which is a loosely concepted region that possibly doesn't include all of Cornwall, possibly includes the Scillies, with Northern Ireland which is a separate country. If you refer back to Beskar's post he says "Devon and Cornwall" which are two counties in South-Western England and may or may not be the same as "Devon-and-Cornwall".



Cornwall is a Duchy (which currently functions as a County), Devon is a County and Northern Ireland is a Country. Devon-and-Cornwall is a region. For extra complexity, Cornwall technically includes large swathes of Devon as part of the Duchy.

You are comparing Apples and Oranges, possibly because you do not live here.

Please, though, tell people in the other parts of the UK how to conceive of their identity, see how far it gets you in a pub down here.

PVC, this just doesn't contradict what I have said.

London or Cornwall are part of the Union in the same way that Northern Ireland or England are part of the Union - territoriality and physically - AND the latter are part of the Union in an additional way that the former are not, namely being legal entities within the Union, or "separate countries" as you say. The fact that separate countries are constituent of the whole in BOTH ways is precisely what allows an individual country's components to in turn "be a part of" that whole. That Cornwall is a part of the Union is wholly dependent on England being a part of the Union, but not vice versa.

It is possible for an entity to have more than one logical status at a time. Identity has nothing to do with it.

[Pannonian]

PVC, this just doesn't contradict what I have said.

London or Cornwall are part of the Union in the same way that Northern Ireland or England are part of the Union - territoriality and physically - AND the latter are part of the Union in an additional way that the former are not, namely being legal entities within the Union, or "separate countries" as you say. The fact that separate countries are constituent of the whole in BOTH ways is precisely what allows an individual country's components to in turn "be a part of" that whole. That Cornwall is a part of the Union is wholly dependent on England being a part of the Union, but not vice versa.

It is possible for an entity to have more than one logical status at a time. Identity has nothing to do with it.

How is Cornwall's legal status separate from that of England? Cornwall has been part of England since before there was any question of any kind of legal status, back in the days when we talked about "authority", not "status". Back in the days when local rulers raised forces to support a High King because the latter was strong enough to organise them against an outside threat.

And here I was thinking us southeastern Europeans are complicated with what's a part of what.

It's only complicated when Americans try to force their conceptions on things they don't understand. At least my Anglocentrism is based on my acknowledgement that there are many things I don't fully understand, and I try to understand it through my imperfect prism. Like I said, MM might as well talk about the legal status of Islington North within the Union. That too exists for administrative purposes, and might well be dissolved when administrative reasons demand it.

[Idaho]

Wow. Some burning issues going down. Cornish secession. Lol

[Pannonian]

Idaho, where do you stand on Brexit? Inside the single market or outside?

[Idaho]

Idaho, where do you stand on Brexit? Inside the single market or outside?

I have a whole list of issues with the EU. It's undemocratic, it's neo liberal, it's corrupt, etc. However brexit as it stands its ridiculous. Its like complaining that your landlord is bad and your house has a load of problems - so you are going to move out and sleep in the park.

[Sarmatian]

And here I was thinking us southeastern Europeans are complicated with what's a part of what.

[Beskar]

Please, though, tell people in the other parts of the UK how to conceive of their identity, see how far it gets you in a pub down here.

Except this has nothing to do with Identity in the slightest...
Though, in your hypothetical pub, I think people in the pub would be cheering when I agree with them that they should get extra money.

London is part of England - and the capital of the UK as a whole. If you disassembled the Union into its Constituent parts London would still be part of England. So, no, London is not "A part of the Union" although you might colloquially say it "belonged to the Union" in a greater sense.

This is basically what I said.

It's only complicated when Americans try to force their conceptions on things they don't understand.

This is not the case. It is Philippus getting super-pedantic storm-in-teacup grade over the idea where I agreed that his local area should get more investment, due to him discussing that it is historically under-invested. He has somehow managed to turn a comment where agreeing to extra money for his area into a quagmire where apparently agreeing that people should receive extra money would result in me getting beaten up by them for offending their identity in a local pub.

For our international friends, Storm-in-teacup = an idiom meaning a small event that has been exaggerated out of proportion

[Gilrandir]

For our international friends, Storm-in-teacup = an idiom meaning a small event that has been exaggerated out of proportion

Do you believe any international friend is still following your discussion?

[Beskar]

Do you believe any international friend is still following your discussion?

This reply denotes 1, Monty is 2, Sammy is 3...

[Husar]

This reply denotes 1, Monty is 2, Sammy is 3...

I scrolled down until I saw a different avatar, just saying.

[Beskar]

I scrolled down until I saw a different avatar, just saying.

Husar 4, Frags 5...

What was Gills point again?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

PVC, this just doesn't contradict what I have said.

London or Cornwall are part of the Union in the same way that Northern Ireland or England are part of the Union - territoriality and physically - AND the latter are part of the Union in an additional way that the former are not, namely being legal entities within the Union, or "separate countries" as you say. The fact that separate countries are constituent of the whole in BOTH ways is precisely what allows an individual country's components to in turn "be a part of" that whole. That Cornwall is a part of the Union is wholly dependent on England being a part of the Union, but not vice versa.

It is possible for an entity to have more than one logical status at a time. Identity has nothing to do with it.

You lost the argument when you put "separate countries" in quotation marks. London and Cornwall are not part of the Union "in the same way" as Northern Ireland, that is entirely the point.

Indeed, the relationship between London and England and between Northern Ireland and England are very different.

Wow. Some burning issues going down. Cornish secession. Lol

Heh, burning issues.

Say, remember during the Olympics when one of the runners in the torch relay unfurled a Cornish flag and tried to carry it over the Tamar Bridge, then got taken out by a Policeman?

Classic Cornish.

Except this has nothing to do with Identity in the slightest...
Though, in your hypothetical pub, I think people in the pub would be cheering when I agree with them that they should get extra money.

No, it's all about identity - identity is why none of the otherwise UK-Wide parties mark seats in Northern Ireland.

As to suggesting we ape the DUP - given the number of ex-Servicemen here I'd imagine that'd go down like a sack of lead balloon.

This is basically what I said.

No, because you made a direct and inappropriate comparison between a region of England and a separate country.

This is not the case. It is Philippus getting super-pedantic storm-in-teacup grade over the idea where I agreed that his local area should get more investment, due to him discussing that it is historically under-invested. He has somehow managed to turn a comment where agreeing to extra money for his area into a quagmire where apparently agreeing that people should receive extra money would result in me getting beaten up by them for offending their identity in a local pub.

For our international friends, Storm-in-teacup = an idiom meaning a small event that has been exaggerated out of proportion

Do you realise that you're arguing about another region of the UK's political identity with someone who lives there and another Englishman, and the only person backing you up is an American?

[Beskar]

Do you realise that you're arguing about another region of the UK's political identity with someone who lives there and another Englishman, and the only person backing you up is an American?

Yet, I am not discussing identity at all and said that numerous times. So you can say and argue blue in the face because you lost the argument when you are only arguing with yourself. Montmorency is simply supporting me in the fact there isn't an argument there. I bow out from any participation in your straw man identity argument.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yet, I am not discussing identity at all and said that numerous times. So you can say and argue blue in the face because you lost the argument when you are only arguing with yourself. Montmorency is simply supporting me in the fact there isn't an argument there. I bow out from any participation in your straw man identity argument.

Or you could just apologise for speaking out of turn. That would require you to admit that your comments could offend, though.

Politics is largely about identity, as are concepts of nationality. You tried to draw an equivalence between politicians in a region of England, and politicians in Northern Ireland and suggest that their constituants had a comparable relationship to "the Union" which is itself a rather American way to refer to the UK.

Nobody talks about "The Union" here except in the context of secession - which is a pregnant topic in Northern Ireland but not South-West England, especially because we would be more likely to secede from England rather than the UK.

Fine, though, try to back out gracelessly.

[Hooahguy]

So this is off topic but I figured a thread about the UK would be the best place in the BR for this.

I'm visiting London in the coming week, I would be down to meet Orgahs in the area who want to meet up for lunch or drinks and whatnot.

[Beskar]

Or you could just apologise for speaking out of turn. That would require you to admit that your comments could offend, though.

I am one of the first people to apologise when I have wronged someone or admit to a mistake. An easy example was the other week when I misread Fragony's post, and he clarified his point, I retracted my statement and apologised for it. Another example where you pointed out I got EU and NATO the wrong-way status around for Finland.

However, on this subject your offence is self-inflicted. I have clarified and expanded my position on the matter which you chose to ignore and continued on your tirade attempting to find more things to be offended about. As such, I have no duty to apologise for this self-inflicted hurt as you have shown no willingness to engage with me nor my further clarification. If you even replied after my further clarification, with "Ah ha, I mistook what you meant by that Beskar, be careful with your wording", I would happily have said "No problem, I apologise, I should have been clearer". Instead of accepting a rational error, you continue doggedly on this topic drawing offence where none was given or intended.

As such, I apologise if my point wasn't clearer resulting in a manner which it was not being intended nor implied. If you continue to feel this is "graceless", that is your prerogative.