The Kintyre Forum

According to about.com, Scotland does not meet the criteria for being a country. You might be interested to read:

http://geography.about.com/od/political ... andnot.htm

Don't believe everything you read on the internet Bobbie.

Come on, John Telling me not to believe everything on the internet was too easy and I'm surprised at you.

I found it interesting because I have had a conversation in the past with someone asking if Scotland is actually a state. Do you disagree with about.com's criteria for defining an independent country:

http://geography.about.com/cs/political ... nation.htm

or do you disagree with what it says about Scotland specifically?

You sound as if your a-lookin-fur-a-ruckus-ma'm - not tonight - people looking out make nations, not people looking in.

Night night

John S wrote:You sound as if your a-lookin-fur-a-ruckus-ma'm - not tonight - people looking out make nations, not people looking in.

Night night

Actually, I wasn't looking for any such thing. Considering your posts on the Public Meeting thread, I'm a little taken back by your reaction to what might have been an interesting conversation.

I assume that About.Com is fairly accurate and used as a source of information by a lot of people. I don't believe everything I read on the net, in the newspapers, or in the history books for that matter. Since I'm not sure the criteria is disputed, I thought it was interesting.

People looking don't make nations at all.

I think it's more to do with the unusual nature of a union of countries, such as the UK, not fitting into this guy's predetermined models than Scotland not being a country as such.

Scotland definitely has its own distinct cultural identity, as compared with England or Wales.

By Rosenberg's definitions many of the european countries might not be considered countries in a few years time, once more of their apparatus of government has been centralised in Brussels.

if scotlands not a country, is it more a state of mind?

Beachcomber wrote:I think it's more to do with the unusual nature of a union of countries, such as the UK, not fitting into this guy's predetermined models than Scotland not being a country as such.

Scotland definitely has its own distinct cultural identity, as compared with England or Wales.

By Rosenberg's definitions many of the european countries might not be considered countries in a few years time, once more of their apparatus of government has been centralised in Brussels.

I have looked at a number of lists on the net, including infoplease.com, countryreports.com, cia.gov, wikipedia.org, nationsonline.org. Apparently it is not Rosenburg's definition, but a much more widely accepted definition.

Beachcomber, I don't doubt that if europe continues in the direction it is going, it will be no different than a United States of Europe. I can easily see how they will become no more than states. As England, Wales and Scotland are not listed as countries, there may come a time when Germany, France and Belgium are no longer listed.

We have beaten the French at football recentley-so the rest are on a slippery slope

This is a question of semantics. I think we all know that Scotland is not an independent sovereign state, (or country, which is the word used here). This sort of article however brings out a certain nationalistic indignation that in itself is part of the perceived stereotypical image of the Scottish character. The observations and facts stated in the article are indisputable. I think the problem comes with the use of the word “country” as opposed to “nation”. That is, we are talking about two different things, ethnic status and political status.

This does not alter the fact that Scotland, both historically and at present, has one of the most readily recognisable profiles of any country in the world, and despite the fact that we have been politically attached to our bigger and internationally more powerful Southern neighbour, we have retained that identity, sometimes as we see it from our point of view, despite the best efforts of that neighbour.

This small country has also arguably made a contribution to life and culture throughout the world that far outweighs its relative size and importance.

There is more to this country than it is given credit for, and I don’t see it as a problem not being a sovereign state. We have managed to retain our individual identity for 300 years without it becoming diluted.

aye thats right, i blame those semantics for everything, the bastards!!!!!

Not to GET OFF THE SUBJECT, but:

Only a few industrious Scots perhaps, who indeed are dispersed over the face of the whole earth. But as for them, there are no greater friends to Englishmen and England, when they are out on't, in the world, than they are. And for my own part, I would a hundred thousand of them were there [Virginia] for we are all one countrymen now, ye know, and we should find ten times more comfort of them there than we do here.

Author: George Chapman

Source: Eastward Ho! (act III, sc. 2)

Annie wrote:Not to GET OFF THE SUBJECT, but:

Only a few industrious Scots perhaps, who indeed are dispersed over the face of the whole earth. But as for them, there are no greater friends to Englishmen and England, when they are out on't, in the world, than they are. And for my own part, I would a hundred thousand of them were there [Virginia] for we are all one countrymen now, ye know, and we should find ten times more comfort of them there than we do here.

Author: George Chapman

Source: Eastward Ho! (act III, sc. 2)

Is this the anti-Scottish statement that Chapman was jailed for?

BINGO!

How can we NOT be considered a country, when the countrymen of the country we are attached to make statements such as these! (This is one of many, as all of you know!)

Here's an anti-English one:

"Black be the day that e'er to England's ground,
Scotland was eikit by the Union's bond"

(Robert Fergusson, The Ghaists, 1773)