Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
ExtremeNorthWales

England, Scotland and Wales are separate countries

Recommended Posts

I find it extremely annoying and quite frankly ignorant, that TPTB refer to The United Kingdom as one country. The U.K. is NOT a country.

 

I have found caches in three different countries; England, (where I am from) Wales, (where I currently reside) and Scotland (which I visited). My profile should state that I have cached in THREE countries.

 

Because the map on the profile statistics page shows the U.K. as one big block, it implies that I have cached in Northern Ireland! I have not.

 

When registering for the website, I was required to select which country I was born in. England was not an option and so I had no option but to select U.K. Some really obscure countries are listed, so why not England, Scotland and Wales??

 

If you agree with me, regardless of where you are from, please add your support to my campaign to have the constituent countries of the U.K. recognised separately.

Share this post


Link to post

AFAICT, while England, Wales, and Scotland are referred to as "countries", that word isn't used in the same way as it is applied to the rest of the world. The United Kingdom is the sovereign state, not the constituent "countries". The "Country" drop-down on this page should more correctly be labelled "Sovereign states" if the use of the word "country" is applied to those three regions.

Share this post


Link to post

AFAICT, while England, Wales, and Scotland are referred to as "countries", that. The United Kingdom is the sovereign state, not the constituent "countries". word isn't used in the same way as it is applied "o the rest of the world. The United Kingdom is the sovereign state, not the constituent "countries". The "Country" drop-down on this page should more correctly be labelled "Sovereign states" if the use of the word "country" is applied to those three regions.

I have considered your response very carefully and looked into definitions of, "Country" and "Sovereign State". I agree with your comment that The United Kingdom is the Sovereign State, not the constituent countries.

 

On the page you linked, it seems to me that the drop down box lists only countries, apart from United Kingdom, which is a sovereignty. I therefore disagree that the drop down should be labelled differently. The drop down is correctly labelled, as it has a list of countries. It just needs to differentiate between England, Scotland and Wales, instead of listing a sovereignty instead.

 

In your reply, you refer to England, Scotland and Wales as regions. I strongly disagree with this. Each of the three countries are split into regions called Counties. For example, I am from Hampshire in England. My girlfriend is from Anglesey in Wales. England is not a "region" within The United Kingdom, it is one of the constituent countries.

 

I think part of the problem here, is that this issue will only be important to the English, the Welsh and Scots. I'm sure people in America or Canada, couldn't care less whether it says United Kingdom in the drop down box. As a customer of the website, I find it to be incorrect and a little ignorant, so I'd like it changed, or at least some kind of response from TPTB.

 

How can it be correct, that my stats show I have only cached in one country? I have cached in three. How can the map show (shaded in) that I have cached in Northern Ireland, when it is across the Irish Sea?

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you for the link :) I'm not sure if I'm missing the point that is being made in the text there, but it seems to be talking about regions like the West Midlands and Southern Scotland. I don't see any reference to countries, other than the differentiation between Northern Ireland and the R.O.I.

Share this post


Link to post

On the page you linked, it seems to me that the drop down box lists only countries, apart from United Kingdom, which is a sovereignty. I therefore disagree that the drop down should be labelled differently. The drop down is correctly labelled, as it has a list of countries. It just needs to differentiate between England, Scotland and Wales, instead of listing a sovereignty instead.

You misunderstand me. The United Kingdom isn't any different than the other entries on that list. They're all sovereign states. Canada is a sovereign state. India is a sovereign state. In the same way, the United Kingdom is a sovereign state. The term "country", generally, is a synonym for sovereign state. When you call England, Wales, and Scotland "countries", that word isn't being used in the same way as if you refer to India as a "country". In that usage, "country" seems closer to "state" or "province", although I do understand that they're closer to sovereign states than they are states or provinces.

 

In your reply, you refer to England, Scotland and Wales as regions. I strongly disagree with this.

"Region" is a generic term to describe an area, at least in the way I've used it. Many different things can be referred to as regions. You could consider Western Canada to be a region, even though there's no such political entity. North America is a region. The southwestern portion of my province is a region. Any sovereign state is a region. Basically, any geographical area you can define can be referred to as a region.

Share this post


Link to post

"Region" is a generic term to describe an area, at least in the way I've used it.

I apologize if that's the way you were using the term. I was being very defensive, as I felt that you were using the word "region" to decrease the significance of England. I only say this, because from my point of view, a region would have less importance than a country.

 

I'll admit that I'm very patriotic. I think perhaps the English, when asked, would state that England is a country; whereas the rest of the World would say that the United Kingdom is a country. The articles I have read on the internet seem to suggest that either view is valid, depending on whether you are speaking technically or colloquially.

 

As the website is essentially American (I feel) I can't expect TPTB to come around to my point of view.

Share this post


Link to post

As the website is essentially American (I feel) I can't expect TPTB to come around to my point of view.

I can't recall which one exactly, but Groundspeak uses a specific website to base their list off of (it might be a UN list). I think it lists the United Kingdom as the country, which is why they've gone with that on the site.

Share this post


Link to post

I have found caches in three different countries; England, (where I am from) Wales, (where I currently reside) and Scotland (which I visited). My profile should state that I have cached in THREE countries.

 

I agree, they should be listed as 3 separate countries...which they are!

 

While we're on the topic, I live in Canada and I found it annoying to have to scroll past Cambodia to get to Canada. Countries with the most caching should be at the top of the list. This is not just an issue at geocaching.com. Many websites will list the United States first, followed by all the other countries in alphabetical order, regardless of who their most frequent customers are.

Share this post


Link to post

I guess if other people felt as strongly about this topic as I do, they would have commented by now. I don't see anyone adding support to my cause, so I guess it's a bit of a non-starter. The map issue does bug me, but I guess I'll just have to ignore it.

Share this post


Link to post

It hasn't even been 10 hours yet since you started the thread. I would wait a bit. There's more traffic in the evenings.

 

It might help to start a topic on the main forum as well. If you want, I can add my gripe about Canada being sandwiched between Cameroon and Cape Verde.

Share this post


Link to post

On the page you linked, it seems to me that the drop down box lists only countries, apart from United Kingdom, which is a sovereignty. I therefore disagree that the drop down should be labelled differently. The drop down is correctly labelled, as it has a list of countries. It just needs to differentiate between England, Scotland and Wales, instead of listing a sovereignty instead.

You misunderstand me. The United Kingdom isn't any different than the other entries on that list. They're all sovereign states. Canada is a sovereign state. India is a sovereign state. In the same way, the United Kingdom is a sovereign state. The term "country", generally, is a synonym for sovereign state. When you call England, Wales, and Scotland "countries", that word isn't being used in the same way as if you refer to India as a "country". In that usage, "country" seems closer to "state" or "province", although I do understand that they're closer to sovereign states than they are states or provinces.

 

In your reply, you refer to England, Scotland and Wales as regions. I strongly disagree with this.

"Region" is a generic term to describe an area, at least in the way I've used it. Many different things can be referred to as regions. You could consider Western Canada to be a region, even though there's no such political entity. North America is a region. The southwestern portion of my province is a region. Any sovereign state is a region. Basically, any geographical area you can define can be referred to as a region.

 

I think you're missing the point. Have you ever told a Chinese person you thought they were Japanese? Or told an English person you thought they were Scottish? I have and it's not pretty.

Share this post


Link to post

I guess if other people felt as strongly about this topic as I do, they would have commented by now. I don't see anyone adding support to my cause, so I guess it's a bit of a non-starter. The map issue does bug me, but I guess I'll just have to ignore it.

 

Perhaps your problem is that you are expecting reality or logic to reign supreme. Not so. Ground Speak plays by whatever list or rules it chooses to use. Even more humorous is that if you found a cache in Northern Ireland, it would count as a find in Ireland, not Great Britain, and would not color in Northern Ireland on the map.

I had contemplated a trip to St. Pierre et Miquelon when it had one cache. That cache was listed as being in France. (St. Pierre et Miquelon is part of France amidst the Canadian Maritimes. At least the residents think they live in France. And the French think the residents live in France.) When the second cache hidden there was published, suddenly, it was no longer part of France. (Which probably comes as a shock to the French.) Yes. I would have taken the extra day, and fares, to find a cache in France. But not to find one in St. Perre et Miquelon. Oh, well. Enjoyed my visit to Newfoundland.

So: No. Logic and reason do not play a part here. And it's futile to try to get GS to change its mind.

Share this post


Link to post

Have you ever told a Chinese person you thought they were Japanese? Or told an English person you thought they were Scottish? I have and it's not pretty.

I don't see that as what's happening here, though. From what I can see, the English person is being called British or considered to be living in the United Kingdom. While the English person may prefer to be called English, being called British is in no way incorrect. I liken it to being called Canadian, even though you and I live in British Columbia. British Columbian is correct, but so is Canadian.

Share this post


Link to post

Groundspeak could have done this a number of ways.

 

[*]Since caches already have the coordinates, they could have simple left country and state off. You search for caches and you get the nearest caches - as the crow flies - no matter the polictical jurisdiction or natural boundary that may separate you from the cache.

[*]They could have allowed people to enter a state/country as free text, but this could have the issue of people using different names or choose a different level of classification. The same location could be in England, Great Britain, or the United Kingdom and all would be correct.

[*]They could chose arbitrary designations for primary and secondary level classification.

For the United States, they picked United States for country and the 50 states plus the District of Columbia for state. I live in the third largest state in area and the largest in population. Its ridiculous to me that California isn't broken down into regions. There are too many caches in California for that to help my search and many would require at least an overnight trip for me to go find. On the other hand, someone in the District of Columbia is likely to find more caches in Maryland and Virgnia.

 

For me, it seems silly to split Great Britain by the traditional countries or even by the traditional counties. When you travel from England to Wales is isn't exactly as if you are crossing an international boarder and have to get your passport stamped. However, I seem to recall a cacher in Devonshire complained that Wales should be a separate country because caches in Wales showed up in their search even though it would take several hours to travel to them. The regions that the UK and Ireland reviewers came up with seem to be a resonable way to handle things.

Edited by tozainamboku

Share this post


Link to post

Have you ever told a Chinese person you thought they were Japanese? Or told an English person you thought they were Scottish? I have and it's not pretty.

I don't see that as what's happening here, though. From what I can see, the English person is being called British or considered to be living in the United Kingdom. While the English person may prefer to be called English, being called British is in no way incorrect.

 

Sure, they're British, but they do have names for their countries. Would you like it if "North America" was listed as a country?

 

I liken it to being called Canadian, even though you and I live in British Columbia. British Columbian is correct, but so is Canadian.

 

That's not a very good analogy. People from Scotland consider themselves *very* distinct from the English. As do the Welsh. People get offended if you confuse them, just as you might not like being mistaken for an American. It's just not the same as comparing yourself to someone from another province.

Share this post


Link to post

Sure, they're British, but they do have names for their countries. Would you like it if "North America" was listed as a country?

I'll try this again.

The list of "countries" on this page consists of sovereign states (admittedly with a few oddball exceptions). Canada is a sovereign state. Argentina is a sovereign state. The United States is a sovereign state. The United Kingdom is a sovereign state. England, Wales, and Scotland are not sovereign states. North America is not a sovereign state.

 

I think a lot of this confusion is due to the British using the term "country" to refer to the subdivisions of the United Kingdom. For most of the world, "country" means the same as sovereign state. In the UK, it does not. Canada is broken down into provinces. The USA consists of states. The UK consists of countries. While these don't all have the same level of self-government, they're all the major subdivisions of their respective sovereign states.

 

Asking for the subdivisions of the UK to be listed separately in the geocaching.com list is no different than asking for the same thing for Canadian provinces, US states, German bundeslands, etc. The UK is the sovereign state, so that's why it's used in that list.

Share this post


Link to post

Asking for the subdivisions of the UK to be listed separately in the geocaching.com list is no different than asking for the same thing for Canadian provinces, US states, German bundeslands, etc. The UK is the sovereign state, so that's why it's used in that list.

Oh no. No, no and thrice NO! This is not the same thing at all. I had agreed with every single point in your last post, up until this paragraph.

 

How can you say that England, Wales or Scotland are the equivalents of U.S. States or German bundeslands? I'm sorry, but I find that offensive. I'm sure that's not your intention, but I do.

 

As I stated previously, our equivalent of U.S. states are our Counties, each of which have a County Council. We then have the English Government, the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament.

 

Regardless of what is perceived in British Columbia/America/Canada, we are brought up here to believe that we live in a clearly defined country and that is important to us. The fact that this isn't respected in other parts of the world, are evident in this thread and on the website.

 

Just to make it clear, I don't have any "beef" with anyone and I'm not here to fall out with anyone. I think it's just a good debate.

 

Edited due to incorrect parentheses.

Edited by alexrea

Share this post


Link to post

I am happy to be called a "Brit", or a resident of the United Kingdom & Northern Ireland, or English (the country where I was born), or Cornish (the English county where I was born). I'm often called Welsh because we currently live in Wales.

 

I agree with the OP that Great Britain (the big island) comprises three countries (England, Scotland and Wales) but for the purposes of finding plastic boxes I'm quite happy for them all to come under "the UK" - I know that we've found caches in England, Wales, Scotland, N Ireland, Eire (and various UK off-shore islands) but I feel no need to have them all separately listed.

 

 

MrsB :)

Share this post


Link to post

How can you say that England, Wales or Scotland are the equivalents of U.S. States or German bundeslands? I'm sorry, but I find that offensive. I'm sure that's not your intention, but I do.

As I stated earlier in my post, I understand that these are not geo-politically equal. What I've been trying to describe (which seems to be falling on deaf ears) is that many sovereign states are broken down into sub-regions. It is in this way that they are equivalent. My Canadian dollar is broken down into cents, while your pound sterling is broken down into pence. Clearly these cents and pence aren't exactly the same, but the concept of subdivision is. Despite your interpretation of my posts, I'm in no way attempting to belittle England, Wales, or Scotland. I'm simply trying to explain why Geocaching.com has gone the way they have.

 

As I stated previously, our equivalent of U.S. states are our Counties, each of which have a County Council. We then have the English Government, the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament.

 

Regardless of what is perceived in British Columbia/America/Canada, we are brought up here to believe that we live in a clearly defined country and that is important to us.

I understand that you feel England is a distinct nation, but the fact remains that the rest of the world doesn't see England as being equivalent geo-politically to other sovereign states. For example, England, Wales, and Scotland do not have seats in the United Nations. The United Kingdom does. For the purposes of most global applications, England, Wales, and Scotland are not treated separately, but rather grouped together under the United Kingdom.

 

I'll reiterate again that I'm not saying you're wrong in being patriotic. It's just that as far as the rest of the world is concerned, the United Kingdom is the sovereign state, not England, Wales, or Scotland. Until those get seats in the United Nations, I don't foresee that perception changing.

Share this post


Link to post

I find it extremely annoying and quite frankly ignorant, that TPTB refer to The United Kingdom as one country. The U.K. is NOT a country.

 

 

I understand your annoyance, but I think you're out of line in calling Groundspeak "ignorant." This isn't really a geocaching issue, nor is it a result of Groundspeak being a US company.

 

If you'll look at the websites for the London Olympics, you won't see England, Scotland and Wales listed as participating countries; the "Country" for which English, Scottish and Welsh athletes competed was referred to as "Great Britain and N. Ireland."

 

However those who are trying to make a comparison with US states or Canadian provinces are off the mark. I don't know if there's another case in the world which is analogous to the UK situation.

Share this post


Link to post

However those who are trying to make a comparison with US states or Canadian provinces are off the mark. I don't know if there's another case in the world which is analogous to the UK situation.

Oh there probably are several states in the world that are compose of people of varying nationalities who claim one part of the territory of that state as their country. The former Soviet Union was certainly a case. I would say that within the Russian Federation today there are several national groups that claim territory. Maybe the most well known case today is in China with Tibetans considered a separate nationality and Tibet being the homeland of the Tibetan people - even if the Chinese government doesn't want you to call it a country. Even in the United States and Canada many of the aboriginal tribes are recognized as nations and their lands have a degree of sovereignty from the surrounding states.

 

The historic areas of Great Britain that were occupied by by Celtic and later Anglo-Saxon tribes where each had developed a separate language and unique cultural traits, certainly fit the definition of nationality. As the Anglo-Saxon tribes gained dominance and later after the Norman French invasion, these countries became ruled by one monarchy. Over time the English language and culture came to dominate (though amazingly years later the people of Scotland and Wales have managed to hold on to some local use of their languages and to have preserved some of their culture). The English have also benefited with these Scottish and Welsh influences making their own culture and history richer. While in recent years, Parliament have give greater autonomy to the non-English regions.

 

But under the common view of geopolitical nation states, it is obvious that the United Kingdom is what most of the world sees as a Country. I salute the Country of the United Kingdom in its almost but not quite unique situation of combining people of different nationalities under one state.

Share this post


Link to post

I understand your annoyance, but I think you're out of line in calling Groundspeak "ignorant." This isn't really a geocaching issue, nor is it a result of Groundspeak being a US company.

I apologise for using the term "ignorant", that's probably a bit much.

 

I disagree however, that this isn't a geocaching issue. The reason this is a geocaching issue, is that it involves the geocaching.com website. The map on my profile page is filled in inaccurately. This is a result of the U.K. being considered as a whole, instead of the individual countries I have cached in. So yes, it is a geocaching issue.

 

Furthermore, if Groundspeak were a U.K. company, I think they would mark the map accordingly. I certainly don't think they would make it appear that I have been to Northern Ireland.

Share this post


Link to post

Presumably finding a cache anywhere in mainland USA will show you as having found a cache in Hawaii and Alaska...is that better or worse?

Share this post


Link to post

Presumably finding a cache anywhere in mainland USA will show you as having found a cache in Hawaii and Alaska...is that better or worse?

I'd be interested to know if this is the case. That sounds pretty ridiculous. At least they're in the same country I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post

Presumably finding a cache anywhere in mainland USA will show you as having found a cache in Hawaii and Alaska...is that better or worse?

I'd be interested to know if this is the case. That sounds pretty ridiculous. At least they're in the same country I suppose.

I thought Hawaii was part of the UK?

 

200px-Flag_of_Hawaii.svg.png

 

More the point. Hawaii was at one time a separate country with its own king and queen. While native Hawaiians are a now a minority of the state's population, their efforts to retain their language and culture would no doubt seem familiar to someone Welsh or Scottish.

Edited by tozainamboku

Share this post


Link to post

I understand your annoyance, but I think you're out of line in calling Groundspeak "ignorant." This isn't really a geocaching issue, nor is it a result of Groundspeak being a US company.

I apologise for using the term "ignorant", that's probably a bit much.

 

I disagree however, that this isn't a geocaching issue. The reason this is a geocaching issue, is that it involves the geocaching.com website. The map on my profile page is filled in inaccurately. This is a result of the U.K. being considered as a whole, instead of the individual countries I have cached in. So yes, it is a geocaching issue.

 

Furthermore, if Groundspeak were a U.K. company, I think they would mark the map accordingly. I certainly don't think they would make it appear that I have been to Northern Ireland.

 

Not meaning to argue with you, but to clarify: the reason I said that this isn't a geocaching issue (I understand that to you it has become one) and that it has nothing to do with Groundspseak being a US company is that, as The A-Team pointed out, Groundspeak is simply using the same protocol as the United Nations. Yes, the UN headquarters is in the US, but I don't think that makes it a US organization. And as I pointed out, the International Olympic Committee uses the country name "Great Britain and N. Ireland," which I believe (if I am mistaken please correct me) covers the same area as the United Kingdom. Groundspeak did not invent the designation; they are merely following common usage. Perhaps you should appeal to "higher powers."

 

Edit: A bit of further research shows that the complete name is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." Now I wonder why doesn't the IOC use "The United Kingdom"?

Edited by NanCycle

Share this post


Link to post

Presumably finding a cache anywhere in mainland USA will show you as having found a cache in Hawaii and Alaska...is that better or worse?

I'd be interested to know if this is the case. That sounds pretty ridiculous. At least they're in the same country I suppose.

 

When looking at the Caches Found in the World Map, all states of the US including Alaska and Hawaii are shaded equally so that it appears that caches were found in every state. This is because it is all one country. See The A-Team's profile.

 

When looking at Caches Found in the US Map, only states in which caches were actually found are shaded, and unequally--depending on the number of caches found in each state.

Share this post


Link to post

And as I pointed out, the International Olympic Committee uses the country name "Great Britain and N. Ireland," which I believe (if I am mistaken please correct me) covers the same area as the United Kingdom.

And yet F.I.F.A. recognises England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and The R.O.I. as separate countries. So in the World Cup, we don't compete as the United Kingdom, or Great Britain.

 

I believe the same is also true of rugby and cricket.

Share this post


Link to post

I thought Hawaii was part of the UK?

 

200px-Flag_of_Hawaii.svg.png

 

More the point. Hawaii was at one time a separate country with its own king and queen. While native Hawaiians are a now a minority of the state's population, their efforts to retain their language and culture would no doubt seem familiar to someone Welsh or Scottish.

Hawaii is a U.S. State. I think it was at one time part of the British Empire, hence the flag.

Share this post


Link to post

I guess if other people felt as strongly about this topic as I do, they would have commented by now. I don't see anyone adding support to my cause, so I guess it's a bit of a non-starter. The map issue does bug me, but I guess I'll just have to ignore it.

 

Honestly (and I speak as someone who lives in England) it's not something I see as important. I don't see the fact I have Northern Ireland coloured on my "where I cached" maps as being any more troublesome than having Alaska and Hawaii coloured (obviously I've found a few caches in the UK, and several in the US but not in Alaska).

 

I'd rate this as a "might be nice to have" change but nothing worthy of any particular attention.

Share this post


Link to post

Presumably finding a cache anywhere in mainland USA will show you as having found a cache in Hawaii and Alaska...is that better or worse?

I'd be interested to know if this is the case. That sounds pretty ridiculous. At least they're in the same country I suppose.

 

On the "countries cached in" map I've got the whole of North America shaded.

 

I've found caches in 11 states (not including Alaska or Hawaii, which are shaded), and two caches in Ontario. But then it's really not that different from the way other maps work - you can ask the question "did I find any caches in the US" where the answer changes from "No" to "Yes" as soon as I find a single cache. Then you can drill down into individual states which will give some differentiation between the person who found caches in all 50 states and the person who popped out of the airport to grab a cache while waiting for a connecting flight. Then if you really want to you can look at county level maps. My maps look nice enough at state level but the county level map shows, for example, that I found a couple of caches in a rest stop in West Virginia and that's all I found in the state.

 

Personally when I go caching I'm more interested in finding little boxes than fussing over exactly what to call the area where I found them.

Share this post


Link to post

As the website is essentially American (I feel) I can't expect TPTB to come around to my point of view.

I can't recall which one exactly, but Groundspeak uses a specific website to base their list off of (it might be a UN list). I think it lists the United Kingdom as the country, which is why they've gone with that on the site.

 

The "countries" list is based on the UN geopolitical ontology. I just took a look at it (I use it for a couple of different applications I've developed and frequently work with the UN agency which developed the ontology) and it lists "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and does not list England, Scotland, or Wales as separate countries. One of the other commonly used sources of geopolitical regions information is the CIA World factbook. It also just lists the United Kingdom, and does not mention England, Scotland, or Wales.

Share this post


Link to post
The United Kingdom is a sovereign state. England, Wales, and Scotland are not sovereign states. North America is not a sovereign state.

 

This offends me. Whilst, after the treaties of 1706 & 1707 (passed by skullduggery and bribery) The United Kingdom came into being as a sovereign state... Scotland is still a Sovereign nation... it did not cease to exist, it simply joined a political union with England. More to the point, the people of Scotland are sovereign. See Declaration of Arbroath [1320] (US Declaration of Independence has roots in this document).

Share this post


Link to post
The United Kingdom is a sovereign state. England, Wales, and Scotland are not sovereign states. North America is not a sovereign state.

This offends me.

You must have gotten offended and stopped reading. I'll repost how I ended off my last post:

I'll reiterate again that I'm not saying you're wrong in being patriotic. It's just that as far as the rest of the world is concerned, the United Kingdom is the sovereign state, not England, Wales, or Scotland. Until those get seats in the United Nations, I don't foresee that perception changing.

The basic truth is that the rest of the world doesn't see those regions as being sovereign nations. That doesn't mean you're wrong in considering Scotland to be sovereign, but that view isn't widely shared by others around the world.

 

Anyway, if what I said offends you, I'm not the one you should be directing your frustration towards. I'm simply the messenger describing how the rest of the world sees things. You should be directing your concerns towards the United Nations and its member nations, as well as throwing your support behind the Scottish independence movement.

Share this post


Link to post

Er, yeah, you're right, my eyes glazed over with rage. ha. :laughing:

 

Interestingly, NATO Secretary General George Robertson 1999-2003 signed the Claim of Right, reaffirming the sovereignty of the Scottish people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claim_of_Right_1989

 

And yes, I'm already a fully paid up member... the sooner we get rid of the ball and chain that is Westminster, the better. I sense this is about to descend into a political argument :ph34r: , so I'm going to bow out now... after saying: I agree with the OP !

Edited by cjdl

Share this post


Link to post

What it looks like to me on the map issue, is instead of a map showing where you've found caches in Europe, it should have a map showing the divisions of the U.K.. That would be similar to my profile, where I have a map showing the countries of the world, with the U.S. shaded, and one showing the states of the U.S., with the 10 states I've cached in shaded. The map of Europe is like if I had a map of North America, with the U.S. shaded.

Edited by Kacher82

Share this post


Link to post

Er, yeah, you're right, my eyes glazed over with rage. ha. :laughing:

 

Interestingly, NATO Secretary General George Robertson 1999-2003 signed the Claim of Right, reaffirming the sovereignty of the Scottish people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claim_of_Right_1989

 

And yes, I'm already a fully paid up member... the sooner we get rid of the ball and chain that is Westminster, the better. I sense this is about to descend into a political argument :ph34r: , so I'm going to bow out now... after saying: I agree with the OP !

I think I see the problem:

 

Claim of Right

 

We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount.

 

We further declare and pledge that our actions and deliberations shall be directed to the following ends:

 

To agree a scheme for an Assembly or Parliament for Scotland;

 

To mobilise Scottish opinion and ensure the approval of the Scottish people for that scheme; and

To assert the right of the Scottish people to secure implementation of that scheme.

 

Here's the proper way to get rid of English rule:

 

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

 

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

 

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

 

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

 

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

 

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

 

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

 

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

 

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

 

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

 

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

 

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

 

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

 

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

 

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

 

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

 

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

 

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

 

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

 

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

 

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

 

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

 

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

 

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

 

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

 

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

 

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

 

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

 

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

 

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

 

And the next time someone suggests my posts are too long, I will remind them of Thomas Jefferson. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

the sooner we get rid of the ball and chain that is Westminster, the better. I sense this is about to descend into a political argument :ph34r: , so I'm going to bow out now... after saying: I agree with the OP !

Thank you for agreeing.

 

I hope you get your independance btw, I'd be all for that. Good luck on your own if it happens ;)

Share this post


Link to post

We have a similar kind of "regionalism" in Germany. For example I would never ever want to be called a Bavarian. Also many Bavarians consider themselves a country in no need of the rest of Germany.

 

I guess there is a similar issue in Spain with Barcelona and the Catalan region.

 

For my part y know the term "country" equal to "sovereign state". And all the different regions (I use it as defined above) of the UK as well as Germany or Spain as they might have been sovereign at one point in history, they are not now.

 

Who knows. One day we might not even be able to call UK, Germany or Spain a "country" anymore. This would be the case if the EU becomes a sovereign state and therfore a country itself. Although if it keeps going as it is I do have doubts that´s ever gonna happen.

Share this post


Link to post

Presumably finding a cache anywhere in mainland USA will show you as having found a cache in Hawaii and Alaska...is that better or worse?

I'd be interested to know if this is the case. That sounds pretty ridiculous. At least they're in the same country I suppose.

 

On the "countries cached in" map I've got the whole of North America shaded.

 

I've found caches in 11 states (not including Alaska or Hawaii, which are shaded), and two caches in Ontario. But then it's really not that different from the way other maps work - you can ask the question "did I find any caches in the US" where the answer changes from "No" to "Yes" as soon as I find a single cache. Then you can drill down into individual states which will give some differentiation between the person who found caches in all 50 states and the person who popped out of the airport to grab a cache while waiting for a connecting flight. Then if you really want to you can look at county level maps. My maps look nice enough at state level but the county level map shows, for example, that I found a couple of caches in a rest stop in West Virginia and that's all I found in the state.

 

Personally when I go caching I'm more interested in finding little boxes than fussing over exactly what to call the area where I found them.

 

Actually, there are twenty-three countries in North America. Plus another twenty-seven dependent territories and 'other areas', according to Wiki.

Edited by Harry Dolphin

Share this post


Link to post

Just curious, but I'm wondering what flag is flown for athletes from Scotland, Wales, England during the Olympics? Or are they one big happy team? BTW, I think it would be a great idea to have them listed as separate countries on Geocaching.com.

Share this post


Link to post

Just curious, but I'm wondering what flag is flown for athletes from Scotland, Wales, England during the Olympics? Or are they one big happy team?

The athletes from those countries compete as Team Great Britain. The flag flown is the Union Jack.

Share this post


Link to post

I am happy to be called a "Brit", or a resident of the United Kingdom & Northern Ireland, or English (the country where I was born), or Cornish (the English county where I was born). I'm often called Welsh because we currently live in Wales.

 

One of my grandfathers was born in Dundee, Scotland in 1872. My surname is Scottish. That's why I refer to myself as a Fifth of Scotch. Nope. Not English or the cumbersome UKish. His father-in-law emigrated in 1860 from Prague in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. So I call myself a quarter Czech. Though he may have been from anywhere in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. And with his last name, he might have been Hungarian. So. If I visit Prague, can I get the Austro-Hungarian Empire colored in? (My mother was of German heritage. Half Plattdeutsch, half Hochdeutsch.)

Share this post


Link to post
The list of "countries" on this page consists of sovereign states (admittedly with a few oddball exceptions).

 

"A few"? If you can include more than 50 non-sovereign entities like Åland Islands, American Samoa, Anguilla, Antarctica, Aruba, Belgium, Bermuda, Bonaire, Bouvet Island, British Indian Ocean Territories, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Curacao, Falkland Islands, Faroe Islands, French Guiana, French Polynesia, French Southern Territories, Gibraltar, Greenland, Guadeloupe, Guam, Guernsey, Heard Island And Mcdonald Islands, Hong Kong, Isle of Man, Jersey, Macau, Martinique, Mayotte, Montserrat, New Caledonia, Norfolk Island, Northern Mariana Islands, Pitcairn Islands, Puerto Rico, Reunion, Saba, Saint Helena, South Georgia and Sandwich Islands, St Barthelemy, St Eustatius, St Pierre Miquelon, St. Martin, Svalbard and Jan Mayen, Tokelau, Turks and Caicos Islands, US Minor Outlying Islands, US Virgin Islands and Wallis And Futuna Islands in that list, you can surely manage to split the UK into England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland?

 

If you'll look at the websites for the London Olympics, you won't see England, Scotland and Wales listed as participating countries; the "Country" for which English, Scottish and Welsh athletes competed was referred to as "Great Britain and N. Ireland."

 

Funny you should bring up the Olympics. The only reason you don't see Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales in the participating countries list is because they competed as Team GB for the 2012 Olympics - presumably so the Scots, Welsh and Irish wouldn't complain too much about the English getting the Olympics. At any other modern Olympics the four countries have sent separate teams. Here's a list of Scottish medal winners, for instance.

Share this post


Link to post
The list of "countries" on this page consists of sovereign states (admittedly with a few oddball exceptions).

 

"A few"? If you can include more than 50 non-sovereign entities like Åland Islands, American Samoa, Anguilla, Antarctica, Aruba, Belgium, Bermuda, Bonaire, Bouvet Island, British Indian Ocean Territories, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Curacao, Falkland Islands, Faroe Islands, French Guiana, French Polynesia, French Southern Territories, Gibraltar, Greenland, Guadeloupe, Guam, Guernsey, Heard Island And Mcdonald Islands, Hong Kong, Isle of Man, Jersey, Macau, Martinique, Mayotte, Montserrat, New Caledonia, Norfolk Island, Northern Mariana Islands, Pitcairn Islands, Puerto Rico, Reunion, Saba, Saint Helena, South Georgia and Sandwich Islands, St Barthelemy, St Eustatius, St Pierre Miquelon, St. Martin, Svalbard and Jan Mayen, Tokelau, Turks and Caicos Islands, US Minor Outlying Islands, US Virgin Islands and Wallis And Futuna Islands in that list, you can surely manage to split the UK into England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland?

I think the two countries of Flanders and Wallonia might take exeception to calling their sovereignity in question. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

×