01 Nov 06
Originally posted by RedmikeGeographically he lives in the Brittish isles (although there are movements to have that changed), and politically he is indeed Brittish. I have no affiliations with either the Unionists, or Nationalists in Northern Ireland, but your idea of the facts are different to my own.
I understand, but that's a political aspiration.
The geographical and political fact is that they don't live in Great Britain.
01 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundLiving in the Brish Isles doesn't make you British. Otherwise people in Dublin would be British.
Geographically he lives in the Brittish isles (although there are movements to have that changed), and politically he is indeed Brittish. I have no affiliations with either the Unionists, or Nationalists in Northern Ireland, but your idea of the facts are different to my own.
And politically, they aren't British, they are citizens of the United Kingdom - a different political entity altogether.
Dictionary definitin of British:
1. of or pertaining to Great Britain or its inhabitants.
2. used esp. by natives or inhabitants of Great Britain: In this dictionary, “Brit.” is an abbreviation for “British usage.”
–noun
3. the people native to or inhabiting Great Britain.
4. British English.
5. the Celtic language of the ancient Britons.
02 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Redmikewell as most of the Unionists in Ireland have heritage that hails from Scotland, i'd say that makes them pretty Brittish, and as the members of parliament from Northern Ireland sit in the House of commons (apart from the obvious few) that would hint towards some POLITICAL affiliation with Britain. You're clutching at straws mate, don't make any more of a mess of your argument than you already have, maybe in your socialist utopia all the people both sides of the border sing Irelands call, and do the Riverdance, here in the real world it is very different.
Living in the Brish Isles doesn't make you British. Otherwise people in Dublin would be British.
And politically, they aren't British, they are citizens of the United Kingdom - a different political entity altogether.
Dictionary definitin of British:
1. of or pertaining to Great Britain or its inhabitants.
2. used esp. by natives or inhabitants of ...[text shortened]... inhabiting Great Britain.
4. British English.
5. the Celtic language of the ancient Britons.
It is quite funny how you have managed to turn this thread into something else, especially as you began the transformation by doing something that shows limited debating ability . . .petty name calling (calling philidor a fool, in case you were wondering). You've gone down in my estimations buddy.
02 Nov 06
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundWhatever your views on Redmike's debating style, his logic is unassailable.
well as most of the Unionists in Ireland have heritage that hails from Scotland, i'd say that makes them pretty Brittish, and as the members of parliament from Northern Ireland sit in the House of commons (apart from the obvious few) that would hint towards some POLITICAL affiliation with Britain. You're clutching at straws mate, don't make any more ...[text shortened]... ling philidor a fool, in case you were wondering). You've gone down in my estimations buddy.
Re the political and geographic make up of the UK he is factually correct on every point. Whether these points are germane to the debate is another matter.
Many people in Britain today have French (or, more correctly, Norman) heritage. Does this make them pretty French?
02 Nov 06
Originally posted by ivangriceTo say that the peopel in Northern Ireland are not Brittish ?
Whatever your views on Redmike's debating style, his logic is unassailable.
Re the political and geographic make up of the UK he is factually correct on every point. Whether these points are germane to the debate is another matter.
Many people in Britain today have French (or, more correctly, Norman) heritage. Does this make them pretty French?
Come on, that's like saying those who live in Wales are not Brittish.
02 Nov 06
2 edits
Originally posted by RedmikeWell as they say this will require the old acid test to actually prove it. If it was as self evident as you all seem to suggest, then why is it taking so long for an independent Scotland to happen?
Nobody is proposing to change the ownership of the North Sea oil fields. The only difference in an independant Scotland is that the tax take comes to Edinburgh, rather than London. The oil companies aren't interested in where the tax goes, just how much they pay.
The UK is the current landlord of the North Sea field and from my limited research the model of ownership and taxation is based on a model referred to as economic rent. Where the difference between the value of production and the cost of bringing the resource to market is the economic rent due. The actual tax model that has evolved is a lot more complicated than that, but in terms of ownership of the field ie:- who will claim legal entitlement once independence issues, is another story. What does Scotland have other than a claim on the Orkneys and Shetlands west of the Field.
Has Whitehall indicated that it will give up its landlord status without adequate compensation for the time that it has allowed the field to grow untrammelled by undue regulatory inteference?
If all the venture capital and finance capital, that currently supports all the ongoing exploratory and productive effort in the Field, is called in tommorrow, how much of it will flow to the city of london? Will Scotland win a pyrrhic victory with independence, when she finds that she will have to seek finance to prop herself up for a period while the anticipated tax windfall from the North Sea takes a while to eventuate as a result of payment of rent due before the current landlord is satisfied to let their property go, such that by the time taxes do flow her way, she will have endebted herself to none other than the grand old city of london once more?
02 Nov 06
Originally posted by RedmikeCompact Oxford English Dictionary definition:
Dictionary definitin of British:
1. of or pertaining to Great Britain or its inhabitants.
adjective relating to Great Britain or the United Kingdom.
Webster's 1828 dictionary
BRIT'ISH, a. Pertaining to Great Britain or its inhabitants. It is sometimes applied to the language of the Welsh.
Wiktionary
1 the citizens or inhabitants of Britain
2 (colq) the citizens or inhabitants of the UK
choose your dictionary, take your choice.
02 Nov 06
Originally posted by kmax87nonsense. under the 1968 Shelf Jurisdiction Order agreed in Geneva, scotland would be entitled to 90% of the current taxation revenues from North Sea Oil and Gas. Fact.
Well as they say this will require the old acid test to actually prove it. If it was as self evident as you all seem to suggest, then why is it taking so long for an independent Scotland to happen?
The UK is the current landlord of the North Sea field and from my limited research the model of ownership and taxation is based on a model referred to as econom ...[text shortened]... r way, she will have endebted herself to none other than the grand old city of london once more?
02 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by aging blitzerI don't know why this is such a huge issue.
Compact Oxford English Dictionary definition:
adjective relating to Great Britain or the United Kingdom.
Webster's 1828 dictionary
BRIT'ISH, a. Pertaining to Great Britain or its inhabitants. It is sometimes applied to the language of the Welsh.
Wiktionary
1 the citizens or inhabitants of Britain
2 (colq) the citizens or inhabitants of the UK
choose your dictionary, take your choice.
People who live in Great Britain are British. People who don't, aren't.
As your dictionary quote says, colloquially, the term is used to describe people from the UK as well as from GB. But just because this is the case doesn't make it correct.