NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, being British, and studying American politics a while back, I always wondered what would happen if Britain became the 51st State of America.

Well, at first I dismissed the idea out of pride, but thinking about it, the idea may in fact be good for Britain as a whole, and here's why.

The American president is not directly elected on the popular vote, but on the proportional number of seats he gets the support of in the electoral college (whose inclination comes from the popular vote). The number of electoral votes each state has is directly proportional to its population.

And if Britain became the 51st state? Its population would grant it somewhere in the region of a hundred and five electoral college votes (assuming a proportional increase in the number of votes, instead of a redistribution of the present number of votes.) This means that Britain would basically provide a third of the entire vote needed for one candidate to become President, meaning its importance is vastly greater than that of any other state in terms of electioneering. It would give Britain the power to decide effectively who the next US president would be.

Indeed, in terms of the President himself, it would be relatively easy for candidates from Britain to actually run for office, certainly seeing the current level of US candidates. So the British could (theoretically) control the executive.

For the legislature, in the Senate the UK would only have two candidates, but in the House of Representatives its power would be equivelant to the electoral college distribution. So there would also be the possibility of at least partially dominating the legislature.?

Of course there would be other concerns, but the possibility remains that the influence the UK could yield within the US is greater than remaining on its own, or even as part of the EU.

puerto rico is a couple ahead of you there.

The U.S. would never accept the U.K. as a state, because the U.K. would be far too powerful, as you said. Not only that, but they're way the hell out in Europe, and thus aren't part of the American brotherhood in any modern way.

Hmmm, I mean, I don't personally support it either, but Im one for debate here and there, and Id rather be with the US than the EU (even if they are right more often)

The US would be interested in UK tourism (London, Big Ben, etc.), but we already have all their good military equipment. :twisted:

Using your idea, imagine if China became a US state... It would completely controll the president and the representative house would be taken...

Britain joining US, huh?

Oh come on; what type of a rubbish idea is this? Imperialism and nation-building like this is long dead, let it rest in its grave.

Well, being British, and studying American politics a while back, I always wondered what would happen if Britain became the 51st State of America.

Well, at first I dismissed the idea out of pride, but thinking about it, the idea may in fact be good for Britain as a whole, and here's why.

The American president is not directly elected on the popular vote, but on the proportional number of seats he gets the support of in the electoral college (whose inclination comes from the popular vote). The number of electoral votes each state has is directly proportional to its population.

And if Britain became the 51st state? Its population would grant it somewhere in the region of a hundred and five electoral college votes (assuming a proportional increase in the number of votes, instead of a redistribution of the present number of votes.) This means that Britain would basically provide a third of the entire vote needed for one candidate to become President, meaning its importance is vastly greater than that of any other state in terms of electioneering. It would give Britain the power to decide effectively who the next US president would be.

Indeed, in terms of the President himself, it would be relatively easy for candidates from Britain to actually run for office, certainly seeing the current level of US candidates. So the British could (theoretically) control the executive.

For the legislature, in the Senate the UK would only have two candidates, but in the House of Representatives its power would be equivelant to the electoral college distribution. So there would also be the possibility of at least partially dominating the legislature.?

Of course there would be other concerns, but the possibility remains that the influence the UK could yield within the US is greater than remaining on its own, or even as part of the EU.


truth be told, i didnt read your post, but i did see the topic title, and i just have to say, "are you on crack?" :shock:

Well, being British, and studying American politics a while back, I always wondered what would happen if Britain became the 51st State of America.

Well, at first I dismissed the idea out of pride, but thinking about it, the idea may in fact be good for Britain as a whole, and here's why.

The American president is not directly elected on the popular vote, but on the proportional number of seats he gets the support of in the electoral college (whose inclination comes from the popular vote). The number of electoral votes each state has is directly proportional to its population.

And if Britain became the 51st state? Its population would grant it somewhere in the region of a hundred and five electoral college votes (assuming a proportional increase in the number of votes, instead of a redistribution of the present number of votes.) This means that Britain would basically provide a third of the entire vote needed for one candidate to become President, meaning its importance is vastly greater than that of any other state in terms of electioneering. It would give Britain the power to decide effectively who the next US president would be.

Indeed, in terms of the President himself, it would be relatively easy for candidates from Britain to actually run for office, certainly seeing the current level of US candidates. So the British could (theoretically) control the executive.

For the legislature, in the Senate the UK would only have two candidates, but in the House of Representatives its power would be equivelant to the electoral college distribution. So there would also be the possibility of at least partially dominating the legislature.?

Of course there would be other concerns, but the possibility remains that the influence the UK could yield within the US is greater than remaining on its own, or even as part of the EU.


truth be told, i didnt read your post, but i did see the topic title, and i just have to say, "are you on crack?" :shock:

Exactly what I'm thinking.

there'd be a lot more people over here on the mainland with british accents

like the alliance board valia?

This would never happen, but let's assume it did. The U.K. would become an adversary of the other 50 states, and there would be disunity again like there was prior to the American Civil War (1860-1865).

great idea! we could make them spell correctly!!
DOWN WITH THE U!!

like the alliance board valia?

the blue needs to be a little lighter, but aside from that it bitchin! also, its not letting me login :x

Meh, its 4 am here, and Im seeing if I can somehow make an intresting argument. Ill bump this post later on this morning so I can see what Brits say.

Britian would be at least four states, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Anyways, oh the irony if Great Britian wound up a part of the American Empire.

Maybe one day in the future they would lead a guerilla war against their oppressive American overlords. Eventually they would chase the Americans from their own country and set up a republic based on Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness...

I can see it now. :wink:

Britian would be at least four states, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Anyways, oh the irony if Great Britian wound up a part of the American Empire.

Maybe one day in the future they would lead a guerilla war against their oppressive American overlords. Eventually they would chase the Americans from their own country and set up a republic based on Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness...

I can see it now. :wink:

what the fuck? i really hope you're not being serious, oh wait i forgot who this was. anyways britian could be part of the united states of america
because they're in europe. :roll:

whoa. Val got the whole word in. confussion. :?

Do we really want to go back to Theo. Rossevelt's "Big Stick" Theory?


I would only support a British State if they made Texas as big as it was when it joined the union.....go Texas!

Elector votes are moved around, based on population, ever few years so your plan wouldn't work. You wouldn't get 1/3 the electoral.
End of idea.

Elector votes are moved around, based on population, ever few years so your plan wouldn't work. You wouldn't get 1/3 the electoral.
End of idea.

Not quite, its based on population, the electoral college votes of each state, right? So even if they adjust it, the UK would still have a significant enough proportion of electoral college votes to basically mean whoever it backs wins the presidency. (Unless it was only the UK and a couple of backwater states who would supported the aforementioned candidate).

Like I said I wouldnt support the move, I mean, how would you integrate the NHS, or force the second amendment on some very unwilling Brits? But its a point.

And another I always wondered about...is Puerto Rico ever becoming a state, or is it just....whatever it chooses to remain?

Elector votes are moved around, based on population, ever few years so your plan wouldn't work. You wouldn't get 1/3 the electoral.
End of idea.

Not quite, its based on population, the electoral college votes of each state, right? So even if they adjust it, the UK would still have a significant enough proportion of electoral college votes to basically mean whoever it backs wins the presidency. (Unless it was only the UK and a couple of backwater states who would supported the aforementioned candidate).

Like I said I wouldnt support the move, I mean, how would you integrate the NHS, or force the second amendment on some very unwilling Brits? But its a point.

And another I always wondered about...is Puerto Rico ever becoming a state, or is it just....whatever it chooses to remain?Puerto Rico will never become a state because it's advantageous for them if they stay a territory.

Oh yeah, and the U.K. would have to withdraw from the E.U., because states aren't allowed to have treaties with foreign powers.

Oh yeah, and the U.K. would have to withdraw from the E.U., because states aren't allowed to have treaties with foreign powers.

You make it sound like a bad thing :wink:

Then we could also make fun of American teeth :D

Oh yeah, and the U.K. would have to withdraw from the E.U., because states aren't allowed to have treaties with foreign powers.

You make it sound like a bad thing :wink:Oh, I forgot, they aren't in the E.U. yet, are they?

Someone could finally teach the English how to cook!

"Rejoice! you dont have to eat crap like "Spotted Dick" anymore!

Oh yeah, and the U.K. would have to withdraw from the E.U., because states aren't allowed to have treaties with foreign powers.

You make it sound like a bad thing :wink:Oh, I forgot, they aren't in the E.U. yet, are they?

We are, sadly, but we're not in the Euro, the EU's new money.

Someone could finally teach the English how to cook!

"Rejoice! you dont have to eat crap like "Spotted Dick" anymore!

Yay, we can have such culinary pleasures as a corndog!

Someone could finally teach the English how to cook!

"Rejoice! you dont have to eat crap like "Spotted Dick" anymore!

Yay, we can have such culinary pleasures as a corndog!

And marshmallow fluff

Someone could finally teach the English how to cook!

"Rejoice! you dont have to eat crap like "Spotted Dick" anymore!

Yay, we can have such culinary pleasures as a corndog!

And marshmallow fluff

Corndog:

Mystery meat and bread on a stick....whats not love?

Indeed.

*sticks pinkie out whilst drinking a cup of tea*

First of all that would never happen. Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa and the other US territories would be ahead of the UK and plus I would agree that at this point in History, bringing another country into the US would not happen. Back in the 1800s the US did absorb another country which did become a state, but in this day and age it would be a political disaster for many people on many fronts. (Oh and BTW if you dont know, that state was Texas)

Well if you haven't noticed Hawaii isn't on the American continent but is a US state. Also, Guam and American Samoa could become states any day. Plus I heard some Liberian leaders wish to become a state, so why not the UK.

Do we really want to go back to Theo. Rossevelt's "Big Stick" Theory?

More importantly, would it relieve us of Bush's Big Stick Theory?

http://www.davidstuff.com/usa/lincoln/bush-nicesmile.jpg

Nahh!

As a whole I think the Americans and the English are like In-Laws. It's good to see them and then it's good to see them go home! :wink:

Nah, the US as a British Colony again is the way to go.

Even if Britain gave up its sovereignty and decided to become a part of the US, there's no reason to believe it would join as a single state. I would imagine it would be split into smaller states that would all join, so as to increase its power in the Senate--2 Senators per state. Also, ther would be no reason to believe that Britain would vote, as a whole, for a single candidate. After all, Britain's political system is far more split up than the US 2-party system. Certainly there would be alliances formed, and there's no reason that if, say, Blair were to run for President, that he'd get every single British vote, even if he ran against an American.

What I want to know is how would it work out what with Britain having a far older history than America (at least written) and the fact that we have vastly different political and legal systems/institutions including the Queen.

What I want to know is how would it work out what with Britain having a far older history than America (at least written) and the fact that we have vastly different political and legal systems/institutions including the Queen.We are dealing with fantasy here, but I imagine it would depend on who was joining whom. If Britain were to join the US, then Britain would have to submit to the Constitution as the law of the land. Were the US to become part of the UK, we would have to submit to the law and systems of Britain.

Meh, tis all a bit of political theorising on my part, but I wonder what you would do with the Queen, especially regarding her role as head of state of the UK.

Meh, tis all a bit of political theorising on my part, but I wonder what you would do with the Queen, especially regarding her role as head of state of the UK.

Well, the Americans like her a lot, don't they?

What the hell?

You missed the most important issue:

Metric vs American.

We sure as hell aren't going to learn Metric, just because it's based on tens, meaning easier to use, is accepted world wide... Hell, we'd have a different way of measuring TIME if we could...

As an American, I say we keep Britain as it's own nation.

President Washington would be saddened to see a nation like Britain be paid it's share of our taxes.

President Washington would be saddened to see a nation like Britain be paid it's share of our taxes.

Why would he be sad?

President Washington would be saddened to see a nation like Britain be paid it's share of our taxes.

Why would he be sad?

Because I doubt he'd think highly of the British being paid with OUR taxes for things like freeways and whatnot...

Because I doubt he'd think highly of the British being paid with OUR taxes for things like freeways and whatnot...

But we'd pay more in than anybody else. We are double the size of California.

President Washington would be saddened to see a nation like Britain be paid it's share of our taxes.

Why would he be sad?Because the Founding Fathers never invisioned the US having an IRS and really didn't want one.

Ooops... *climbs back inside the box*

Because I doubt he'd think highly of the British being paid with OUR taxes for things like freeways and whatnot...

But we'd pay more in than anybody else. We are double the size of California.

so? He still wouldn't be happy.

Think, Washington spent his mid/late years being against the Brits. See: Revolutionary War. I doubt he cares about what they pay, but rather, what we pay.

It's basic human psycology (sp)

so? He still wouldn't be happy.

Think, Washington spent his mid/late years being against the Brits. See: Revolutionary War. I doubt he cares about what they pay, but rather, what we pay.

It's basic human psycology (sp)

He's not alive anyway, so it doesn't matter what he would (hypothetically) think about it all.

so? He still wouldn't be happy.

Think, Washington spent his mid/late years being against the Brits. See: Revolutionary War. I doubt he cares about what they pay, but rather, what we pay.

It's basic human psycology (sp)

He's not alive anyway, so it doesn't matter what he would (hypothetically) think about it all.

Just putting my two cents on the table


Anyways...does it matter at all? Britain is an ocean away and does not hold American interests (and by that I mean, the British are not interested in being American)

Anyways...does it matter at all? Britain is an ocean away and does not hold American interests (and by that I mean, the British are not interested in being American)

Well, the same could be said for Hawaii....

Anyways...does it matter at all? Britain is an ocean away and does not hold American interests (and by that I mean, the British are not interested in being American)

Well, the same could be said for Hawaii....
they voted themselves in, which renders your sentence as a lie.

they voted themselves in, which renders your sentence as a lie.

Well, how do you know how the British would vote? Are you British?

they voted themselves in, which renders your sentence as a lie.

Well, how do you know how the British would vote? Are you British?
Are you Hawaiian?

A much better idea would be for the US to join the commonwealth, they are a former colony after all and thus fully entitled!

Of course on the downside they would then go on and win everything in the commonwealth games....

Are you Hawaiian?

Nope, are you?

Are you Hawaiian?

Nope, are you?

Californian

Californian

Ah, glad we got that sorted out.

Californian

Ah, glad we got that sorted out.

amen

you were saying something about the Hawaiians voting and turned it to the British voting...

amen

you were saying something about the Hawaiians voting and turned it to the British voting...

All I was saying was how do you know how the British would vote.

The U.S. would never accept the U.K. as a state, because the U.K. would be far too powerful, as you said. Not only that, but they're way the hell out in Europe, and thus aren't part of the American brotherhood in any modern way.


Yes and Alaska and Hawaii arent far away from us? Hawaii is practically in freaking Asia!

amen

you were saying something about the Hawaiians voting and turned it to the British voting...

All I was saying was how do you know how the British would vote.

oh, well it's common sense based on today's standards

I doubt an American state would EVER vote to be a British colony or territory.

Well, if Britain joined the US, here's what I think would happen.

France and Germany would never disagree with the US again, with the Americans being so close to their shores.

There would be two capitols, like Rome and Constaninople, except it would be DC and London.

The American Checks and Balances system would stop Britain from manipulating the system due to their population.

Britain would be broken into Scotland, Wales, England, and Northern Ireland.

The Republic of Ireland would later join the US.

Britain would have to accept the dollar and American measuring system.

The Queen would become an American figurehead.

The British would enjoy the benefits of the American economy.

America and Britain would have the most powerful military the world has ever seen.

Britain would support Israel.

Britain would accept the Republican and Democrat party. Britain would probably come up with it's own: The American British Party (ABP)

The BBC would be shut down and Fox News would air in Britain.

More Americans will fake British accents....

Britain will come to love American football and America will grow to love soccer.

London will have it's own American Football and Baseball franchises.

Australia and Canada will feel left out and join the party, resulting in a new alliance, like the EU, the Anglo Union.

That's all I can think of right now....

we'd most likely split up britain into several states not just one

Britain can't become the 51st state of the USA. Israel already is. Happy 52nd though!

Well, it would be great, but there is one problem. How could Brittan, which has territories all over the world become a State? There would have to be, what, fourteen more island states each with about a 14' diameter coming along to. Even if that wasn't such a big problem, what about Brittish Culture? Otherwise, it's a great idea.

Well, if Britain joined the US, here's what I think would happen.

France and Germany would never disagree with the US again, with the Americans being so close to their shores.

There would be two capitols, like Rome and Constaninople, except it would be DC and London.

The American Checks and Balances system would stop Britain from manipulating the system due to their population.

Britain would be broken into Scotland, Wales, England, and Northern Ireland.

The Republic of Ireland would later join the US.

Britain would have to accept the dollar and American measuring system.

The Queen would become an American figurehead.

The British would enjoy the benefits of the American economy.

America and Britain would have the most powerful military the world has ever seen.

Britain would support Israel.

Britain would accept the Republican and Democrat party. Britain would probably come up with it's own: The American British Party (ABP)

The BBC would be shut down and Fox News would air in Britain.

More Americans will fake British accents....

Britain will come to love American football and America will grow to love soccer.

London will have it's own American Football and Baseball franchises.

Australia and Canada will feel left out and join the party, resulting in a new alliance, like the EU, the Anglo Union.

That's all I can think of right now....

And the British would suddenly all become obese, but with great teeth :lol:

Well, if Britain joined the US, here's what I think would happen.

France and Germany would never disagree with the US again, with the Americans being so close to their shores.

There would be two capitols, like Rome and Constaninople, except it would be DC and London.

The American Checks and Balances system would stop Britain from manipulating the system due to their population.

Britain would be broken into Scotland, Wales, England, and Northern Ireland.

The Republic of Ireland would later join the US.

Britain would have to accept the dollar and American measuring system.

The Queen would become an American figurehead.

The British would enjoy the benefits of the American economy.

America and Britain would have the most powerful military the world has ever seen.

Britain would support Israel.

Britain would accept the Republican and Democrat party. Britain would probably come up with it's own: The American British Party (ABP)

The BBC would be shut down and Fox News would air in Britain.

More Americans will fake British accents....

Britain will come to love American football and America will grow to love soccer.

London will have it's own American Football and Baseball franchises.

Australia and Canada will feel left out and join the party, resulting in a new alliance, like the EU, the Anglo Union.

That's all I can think of right now....

And the British would suddenly all become obese, but with great teeth :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Glad you'd rather join us than the EU but how about neither? Thats best. we can certainly be friends but I'd rather see britain stay its own as I do the usa

Interesting idea. we'd get america into a britain basically we'd have bill clinton, tony blair types as presidents.

Thought of some more...

Tony Blair runs for President in 2008, defeating Hilary Clinton, he chooses to move to Washington DC.

Canada, New Zealand, and Australia join the US and form their own parties.

Stephistan becomes a Conservative over night, she ends all of her posts in General with the quote "I'm proud to be an American." She later writes a bestselling book "Israel: You Gotta Love 'Em."

Steve Irwin defeats Tony Blair for the Presidency in 2012 in the closest race of all time. Blair calls for a recount, saying the voters in Northern Ireland didn't understand the ballots, he admits defeat later on.

Americans begin to say "Crikey, Oui, Smashing, Eh?" and other foreign terms.

The Brits boasts the largest obesity figures in the US.

France gets nuked.

A combined American, British, Aussie, Canadian, New Zealand Army invades and conquers Europe, disbanding the EU.

France gets nuked.

George Bush III becomes President of the US, he creates thousands of jobs but Conservatives accuse him of being far too liberal.

France begins to glow.

Kilts are popular in America.

That's about it.

Hawaii voted to become part of the US? Hmm, I don't remember that.. do remember that Queen Liliuokalani was forced to give up her throne. In 1893, Queen Liliuokalani wanted to empower herself and native Hawaiians by doing away with the "Bayonet Consitution", and tried to emplace a new one which she herself wrote up - and desired to promulgate as the new law of the land. It was her right, of course, as a sovereign, to issue a new constitution through an edict from the throne.

However, a group led by.. Sanford Dole I believe, sought to overthrow the institution of monarch in Hawaii. The American minister in Hawaii, err.. John Stevens, called for American troops to take control of Iolani Palace and various other government buildings. By 1894, the Queen was disposed, the monarch abrogated, and a provincial government was established which later became the Republic of Hawaii.

Hawaii voted to become part of the US? Hmm, I don't remember that.. do remember that Queen Liliuokalani was forced to give up her throne. In 1893, Queen Liliuokalani wanted to empower herself and native Hawaiians by doing away with the "Bayonet Consitution", and tried to emplace a new one which she herself wrote up - and desired to promulgate as the new law of the land. It was her right, of course, as a sovereign, to issue a new constitution through an edict from the throne.

However, a group led by.. Sanford Dole I believe, sought to overthrow the institution of monarch in Hawaii. The American minister in Hawaii, err.. John Stevens, called for American troops to take control of Iolani Palace and various other government buildings. By 1894, the Queen was disposed, the monarch abrogated, and a provincial government was established which later became the Republic of Hawaii.

I think I'd quite possibly kill myself, as a Briton.

Well, if Britain joined the US, here's what I think would happen.

France and Germany would never disagree with the US again, with the Americans being so close to their shores.

:arrow: True

There would be two capitols, like Rome and Constaninople, except it would be DC and London.

:arrow: You mean two MAIN capitols? Or are you saying that we'll begin a campaign of imperialism?

The American Checks and Balances system would stop Britain from manipulating the system due to their population.

:arrow: Glad to see that

Britain would be broken into Scotland, Wales, England, and Northern Ireland.

:arrow: I'm sure they wouldn't mind having their own government...

The Republic of Ireland would later join the US.

:arrow: See above, why?

Britain would have to accept the dollar and American measuring system.

:arrow: True...

The Queen would become an American figurehead.

:arrow: False, the crown of Britain is not so popular here in the U.S. That's not going to change.

If anything, the British crown would be abolished from any sort of governmental power in order to uphold the laws of the U.S. Constitution.

The British would enjoy the benefits of the American economy.

:arrow: And vice-versa?

America and Britain would have the most powerful military the world has ever seen.

:arrow: So damn true.

Britain would support Israel.

:arrow: They would have to, they represent America now

Britain would accept the Republican and Democrat party. Britain would probably come up with it's own: The American British Party (ABP)

:arrow: heheh....cute...

The BBC would be shut down and Fox News would air in Britain.

:arrow: No, the BBC can still air and Fox News CAN air as well. But I'm sure the BBC would stay.

More Americans will fake British accents....

:arrow: We must protect our women at whatever cost

Britain will come to love American football and America will grow to love soccer.

:arrow: We're trying

London will have it's own American Football and Baseball franchises.

:arrow: heh, I'd pay to see that

Australia and Canada will feel left out and join the party, resulting in a new alliance, like the EU, the Anglo Union.

:arrow: Canada? HELL NO!

That's all I can think of right now....

And we'll treat the Brits like we treat the Southerners here. We'll portray you all as weirdos with bad accents and bad teeth. (j/k)

Oh, and you gotta quit calling us Yanks if Brits are gonna be a state. I mean, they should learn what Yankee is in the first place.

Hawaii voted to become part of the US? Hmm, I don't remember that.. do remember that Queen Liliuokalani was forced to give up her throne. In 1893, Queen Liliuokalani wanted to empower herself and native Hawaiians by doing away with the "Bayonet Consitution", and tried to emplace a new one which she herself wrote up - and desired to promulgate as the new law of the land. It was her right, of course, as a sovereign, to issue a new constitution through an edict from the throne.

However, a group led by.. Sanford Dole I believe, sought to overthrow the institution of monarch in Hawaii. The American minister in Hawaii, err.. John Stevens, called for American troops to take control of Iolani Palace and various other government buildings. By 1894, the Queen was disposed, the monarch abrogated, and a provincial government was established which later became the Republic of Hawaii.

Hmm...are you familiar with the 1950's?

I doubt an American state would EVER vote to be a British colony or territory.

Would they vote not to be American?

Britain can't become the 51st state of the USA. Israel already is. Happy 52nd though!

Lol! Unfortunately, that's all but official. :x

join the british common wealth

extend the commonwealth to include america

That control that you mentioned would be the primary reason that the U.S. would never agree to have the U.K. join it. Remember, we fought two wars to get you off our backs! :P

Anyway, I like the fact that the U.K. is a different country from the U.S.

this idea is interesting, but absolutly ridiculous. the United Kingdom would never join the U.S simply out of its own pride. after losing their entire empire (quarter of the world baby!), the final insult would be to submit to an empire themselves. besides, since the U.K is now a part of the European Union, it might actually start a war between Europe and America, causing France to surrender, then move its entire population to go hide in belgium.

Why would any country willingly give away its sovereignty for absolutely no reason? Its not exactly like were penniless here in Britain, we have the 4th largest economy in the world despite being a tiny country population wise.

Why would any country willingly give away its sovereignty for absolutely no reason? Its not exactly like were penniless here in Britain, we have the 4th largest economy in the world despite being a tiny country population wise.

Woah...my own Californian state has the 5th largest enonomy on the world! Nice knowing we're right behind Britain 8)


Catholic Europe - Britain has been it's own nation for..what? a few centuries? The British would never allow their nation to be swallowed up by their FORMER COLONY! (Ironic, isn't it?)

Meh, tis all a bit of political theorising on my part, but I wonder what you would do with the Queen, especially regarding her role as head of state of the UK.

Well, the Americans like her a lot, don't they?

Hard to say. The royals lost a lot of ground after Diana.

SHL

What the hell?

You missed the most important issue:

Metric vs American.

We sure as hell aren't going to learn Metric, just because it's based on tens, meaning easier to use, is accepted world wide... Hell, we'd have a different way of measuring TIME if we could...

Actually to the extent we can we do. We have Daylight Savings Time, except some areas (part of Indiana at least) and we use a 12 hors time reference. We also put the date as 5/23/2004 rather than 23/5/2004.

We also drive on the right side. :wink:

SHL

Anyways...does it matter at all? Britain is an ocean away and does not hold American interests (and by that I mean, the British are not interested in being American)

Well, the same could be said for Hawaii....
they voted themselves in, which renders your sentence as a lie.

Well first they voted on it then Congress voted on it and the Pres signed it.. It wasn't like they elbowed their way in just by voting. It was the first step.

SHL

Hawaii voted to become part of the US? Hmm, I don't remember that.. do remember that Queen Liliuokalani was forced to give up her throne. In 1893, Queen Liliuokalani wanted to empower herself and native Hawaiians by doing away with the "Bayonet Consitution", and tried to emplace a new one which she herself wrote up - and desired to promulgate as the new law of the land. It was her right, of course, as a sovereign, to issue a new constitution through an edict from the throne.

However, a group led by.. Sanford Dole I believe, sought to overthrow the institution of monarch in Hawaii. The American minister in Hawaii, err.. John Stevens, called for American troops to take control of Iolani Palace and various other government buildings. By 1894, the Queen was disposed, the monarch abrogated, and a provincial government was established which later became the Republic of Hawaii.

Crikey (I'm practicing here) you're right. I see no record of their having voted on the issue. It was Congress & DDE who established it as a state. I did see though where the issue of secession is alive and well.

If that goes through can Britian have your flag? http://www.nationmaster.com/images/enc/U/Us-hi-smal.jpg

SHL

This summer...

It's been festering for almost 250 years.

It's the REVOLUTIONARY WAR II!!!!!!!

Bush vs. Blair in the Boxing Ring in a blimp halfway between Washington DC and London!!

The Bronx (1,354,068) has a larger population than Hawaii (1,244,898).

But Hawaii is much pretier and has a cooler flag.

http://www.nationmaster.com/images/enc/U/Us-hi-smal.jpg
Hawaii

http://bronxboropres.nyc.gov/global_images/seal.jpg
Da Bronx

*Sploos tea out*
*puts in monacle in disbelief*

Britain? Joining the colonies? Good heavens no! My word, what a frightful thought old chap. What would happen to our charts? Verdi and Mozart would be replaced overnight with anorexic girls, how preposterous!
No no, old bean a far better solution would be to extend British citizenship to all those colonials. Yes, I can see it all now.... Could you imagine where we would be if that happened? American cockneys? Fightful. Absolutely frightful. Needless to say, if they accept our generous offer, they would need to give up their silly dollar, and join a real currency. After all, how can we be sure that your monetary system is as good as ours? After all, the royal mail has been around longer than the colonies. And dreadnoughts. They would need to build us dreadnoughts. None of these "aircraft carriers" they seem horribly enthused about. Maybe they should dismantle those cowardly submarines too, eh? Not gentlemanly, hiding under the water like that.
Now, where was I?
Ah yes.
*puts mozart back on, and fetches another cup of Earl Grey from Stevens, the butler.*

Wait a sec...why are we arguing over how Hawaii was annexed? There's 49 other states!

Well, if Britain joined the US, here's what I think would happen.

France and Germany would never disagree with the US again, with the Americans being so close to their shores.

:arrow: True

There would be two capitols, like Rome and Constaninople, except it would be DC and London.

:arrow: You mean two MAIN capitols? Or are you saying that we'll begin a campaign of imperialism?

The American Checks and Balances system would stop Britain from manipulating the system due to their population.

:arrow: Glad to see that

Britain would be broken into Scotland, Wales, England, and Northern Ireland.

:arrow: I'm sure they wouldn't mind having their own government...

The Republic of Ireland would later join the US.

:arrow: See above, why?

Britain would have to accept the dollar and American measuring system.

:arrow: True...

The Queen would become an American figurehead.

:arrow: False, the crown of Britain is not so popular here in the U.S. That's not going to change.

If anything, the British crown would be abolished from any sort of governmental power in order to uphold the laws of the U.S. Constitution.

The British would enjoy the benefits of the American economy.

:arrow: And vice-versa?

America and Britain would have the most powerful military the world has ever seen.

:arrow: So damn true.

Britain would support Israel.

:arrow: They would have to, they represent America now

Britain would accept the Republican and Democrat party. Britain would probably come up with it's own: The American British Party (ABP)

:arrow: heheh....cute...

The BBC would be shut down and Fox News would air in Britain.

:arrow: No, the BBC can still air and Fox News CAN air as well. But I'm sure the BBC would stay.

More Americans will fake British accents....

:arrow: We must protect our women at whatever cost

Britain will come to love American football and America will grow to love soccer.

:arrow: We're trying

London will have it's own American Football and Baseball franchises.

:arrow: heh, I'd pay to see that

Australia and Canada will feel left out and join the party, resulting in a new alliance, like the EU, the Anglo Union.

:arrow: Canada? HELL NO!

That's all I can think of right now....

And we'll treat the Brits like we treat the Southerners here. We'll portray you all as weirdos with bad accents and bad teeth. (j/k)

Oh, and you gotta quit calling us Yanks if Brits are gonna be a state. I mean, they should learn what Yankee is in the first place.

LoL buddy, you didn't have to correct some of things I said, I just put them up there for humor. :wink:

http://www.kent.gov.uk/sp/kentregserv/graphics/rupert.GIF

Are you all mad? Despite the sneers and derision that goes back and forth across the Atlantic, the UK and US are good friends. I believe we are each others best friends. Ever here of the saying 'familiarity breeds contempt'?
America is still Britain writ large (politics, law, language, ethics etc.), and Britain is very much the glue that binds Europe and America together, never mind the current spat of dissagreements.

Yet.

We are two unique cultures and God preserve us both. Seperately.

Might as well.

I must say, this would not seem to be something to get so many responses and yet it almost seems that these people have put serious thought into this, Limey and Yank alike (like the use of distasteful nicknames?), I personally never thought of this much, I have alsways thought of the US and Britain as good friends who despite fighting 2 wars between each other were able to put our differences behind us to form a lasting friendship.

Perhaps we should all right our elected representatives to try and get our congress and your parliament to make this happen, just to see which of us in here was right, those who said their would be war, those who said it would create discontent amongst the US and Europe. (Cuz it's not like we don't already argue enough.) Or those who said their would be a peaceful assimilation of Britain into the US, I am going to write my senators (we don't a representative in the House right now, we have a special election on June 1st, our old rep was convicted of manslaughter.) and ask them to propose a bill about this and try to ram it through congress, I suggest everyone else does the same.

Personally, I think it might do both the US and UK some good to have a merger. The UK would never be the 51st state, however, it would be the 51st through 53rd states. That said, it will never happen for a lot of reasons that a lot of people have already addressed.

Nevertheless, I would like to the US, the UK and any other interested anglophone country explore somekind of cooperative union. Such a union would have more economic power than the EU and as much or more military power than NATO. Plus, I think it would have a positive influence on domestic politics in both countries.

What if Britain became the 51st State?

Nai, I'm much rather Canada be that, or actually Canada's provences become the newest states. And maybe Puerto Rico while we're at it. We need to make Alaska part of the Continental United States. Oh and Canada has been like an unofficial extension of the US for a while, I'd like to make it an OFFICIAL extension.

Why would any country willingly give away its sovereignty for absolutely no reason? Its not exactly like were penniless here in Britain, we have the 4th largest economy in the world despite being a tiny country population wise.

No, we're not that small population wise. Infact, according to the CIA website the UK is the 20TH LARGEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. And that's considering that there are about 190 countries in this world.

Britain is 3 TIMES BIGGER than Australia when it comes to population,
Britain is 2 TIMES BIGGER than Canade when it comes to population,
And London is 4 TIMES BIGGER than Mongolia.

That's not tiny if you ask me.

Catholic Europe - Britain has been it's own nation for..what? a few centuries? The British would never allow their nation to be swallowed up by their FORMER COLONY! (Ironic, isn't it?)

Well, more than a few centuries really.

Catholic Europe - Britain has been it's own nation for..what? a few centuries? The British would never allow their nation to be swallowed up by their FORMER COLONY! (Ironic, isn't it?)

Well, more than a few centuries really.

Well, England or the UK, cos technically the UK only really came about in full at the beginning of the eighteenth century with the Act of Union between England and Scotland.

Well, England or the UK, cos technically the UK only really came about in full at the beginning of the eighteenth century with the Act of Union between England and Scotland.

Well, we are lead to believe that Britain has been around since like the Romans.

Well, England or the UK, cos technically the UK only really came about in full at the beginning of the eighteenth century with the Act of Union between England and Scotland.

Well, we are lead to believe that Britain has been around since like the Romans.

It gets complicated. The problem is many Americans confuse terms like England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom and tend to think they all mean the same thing.

The country's of the UK individually have existed for millenia in one form or another, but, like I said, the full United Kingdom is surprisingly young.

Britain joining US, huh?

Oh come on; what type of a rubbish idea is this? Imperialism and nation-building like this is long dead, let it rest in its grave.

sadly, imperialism and "nation-building" are alive, if not well, in Iraq ...

anyway, Britain could never become the 51st state because the US would be faced with the knotty problem of dealing with terrorism in Northern Ireland, instead of supporting and funding it as it has in the past ...

It gets complicated. The problem is many Americans confuse terms like England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom and tend to think they all mean the same thing.

Well, it isn't much different over here in the UK. History is history of England and we are not lead to know differently.

Britains full correct name (for the unwashed out there) - The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

It gets complicated. The problem is many Americans confuse terms like England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom and tend to think they all mean the same thing.

Well, it isn't much different over here in the UK. History is history of England and we are not lead to know differently.

Really? What sort of school did you go to? I have never met an English person (not to mention Scots or Welsh or Irish) who could not differentiate between England and the UK or Great Britain.

Of course there are some who can't- hence the British Nationalist Party. I've often wondered how the BNP functions when there is no such thing as a British Nation. :lol:

Really? What sort of school did you go to? I have never met an English person (not to mention Scots or Welsh or Irish) who could not differentiate between England and the UK or Great Britain.

No, I can differentiate. What I'm saying is that we learn English history as if that is the only history of the UK.

No, I can differentiate. What I'm saying is that we learn English history as if that is the only history of the UK.

Ah right- sorry, misunderstood your point.

I don't know that much about the modern English education system- I went to school in Singapore where we use the old English system (it works!).
So don't they have parts of the history syllabus where they talk about Scotland or Wales? Or are the syllabi in Scotland and Wales controlled by different educational authorities? I'd assume this to be the case- somehow I don't think that the Scots or Welsh would stand for their children only being taught the history of England.

give japan it's empire back!!!!!! :twisted:

*gets out his WWII rising sun flag out and a picture of his girlfriend!!!*

:lol:

I don't know that much about the modern English education system- I went to school in Singapore where we use the old English system (it works!).
So don't they have parts of the history syllabus where they talk about Scotland or Wales? Or are the syllabi in Scotland and Wales controlled by different educational authorities? I'd assume this to be the case- somehow I don't think that the Scots or Welsh would stand for their children only being taught the history of England.

Well, in England what I have said is the case....and I'm still at school! We don't even cover the act of Union in 1707 (I think it was 1707).

I don't know that much about the modern English education system- I went to school in Singapore where we use the old English system (it works!).
So don't they have parts of the history syllabus where they talk about Scotland or Wales? Or are the syllabi in Scotland and Wales controlled by different educational authorities? I'd assume this to be the case- somehow I don't think that the Scots or Welsh would stand for their children only being taught the history of England.

Well, in England what I have said is the case....and I'm still at school! We don't even cover the act of Union in 1707 (I think it was 1707).

The modern English education system is crap and tainted with political correctness. They teach heavily about WwII and local history, but children don't get any sort of historical perspective - it's difficult to see how they even understand why this is a kingdom or why we still have a seat at the UN, or why so much of the world still has some sort of British interest or involvement. Certainly the Act of Union would be regarded as peripheral and not worth teaching.

*looks at poll*

Ya know, its remained about the same percentage throughout voting.

I don't know that much about the modern English education system- I went to school in Singapore where we use the old English system (it works!).
So don't they have parts of the history syllabus where they talk about Scotland or Wales? Or are the syllabi in Scotland and Wales controlled by different educational authorities? I'd assume this to be the case- somehow I don't think that the Scots or Welsh would stand for their children only being taught the history of England.

Don't know about Wales, but Scotland has its own educational authority and its own separate exam system, which dates back to the time when Scotland was the first nation anywhere to provide the majority of its population with at least the rudiments of an education -- which is why Scots practically built the modern word, as more of us could read and write than the rest of Europe and America put together.

A slight exaggeration, but not utterly untrue; the 18th-century Scottish Enlightenment did see the creation of much of modern science, philosophy, medicine, engineering, economic and political theory... see The Scottish Enlightenment: The Scots' Invention of the Modern World by Arthur Herman for more information. After all, "It is from Scotland that we receive rules of taste in all the arts." -- Voltaire.

Mind you, not that you'd know any of this from the Scottish education system. Until very recently, very little Scottish history was taught in Scottish schools, and what there was, was calculated to be the most boring parts possible; e.g. the Scottish Agricultural Revolution: leaden words of doom to the young mind. Again, until very recently, you wouldn't see works by Scottish writers studied in Scottish schools (with the exception of a brief annual ritual nod towards Burns). This is variously known as Cultural Imperialism, the Scottish Cringe, or the Caledonian Antisyzygy, and is a real pain in the arse, I can tell you -- all the worse because we do it to ourselves.

Anyway, all that's a bit off topic. Back to the UK, or its component parts, becoming US states -- a bit unlikely. Who would want it? Awful food (spray-on cheese!?), the worst beer on the planet (look what they did to Budweiser; thank god it's still possible to get Czech Budvar), crotch-clutchingly dull sports (with built-in advert breaks) and TV that would make an imbecile weep. At least Europe has the food, beer and football thing going for it. America's a nice place to visit, but I really don't want to live there.

If Britain became the 51st state of the United States, I'd laugh. And I mean LAUGH OUT LOUD! :lol: Once the most powerful empire in the world, and now reduced to colonial status.

Oh well, didn't that already happen with Mongolia? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :twisted:

Mind you, not that you'd know any of this from the Scottish education system. Until very recently, very little Scottish history was taught in Scottish schools, and what there was, was calculated to be the most boring parts possible; e.g. the Scottish Agricultural Revolution: leaden words of doom to the young mind.

Having gone through the Scottish education system very recently (I have my Advanced Higher History exam a week today) I can confirm that the Scottish history we are taught is still very boring. Certainly at Standard Grade, anyway - we did Health and Housing and the Scottish Agricultural Revolution, as you said. The former was largely about how tenements sucked and all I remember of the latter is something about how rigs (runrigs?) were all joined together to form big fields instead of little ones. Also how all the Clydesdale horses went off in the First (?) World War to get slaughtered.

Higher History is slightly better because it deals with the roots of Scottish nationalism, but then undoes that good work by making students learn the origins and rise of the SNP. Never quite figured out why.

Dragging this back to the proper topic, can you imagine the chaos that would occur if Britain did become part of America? We'd have to have bilingual signs to account for the discrepancies in English, presumably meaning poor Wales would have to have tri-lingual signs. :P

Yes, as Jeldred said, Scotland has had it's own educational system and examinations for years upon years, largely due to, as Jeldred said again, people receiving some sort of an education - Burns himself received an education despite being, basically, quite a poor farmer/crofter. It wasn't much of a education, or totally comprehensive, but there was one, nonetheless. Scotland, due to it being a seperate nation before the Act of Union, also has its own legal system. Wales, I'm not too sure about, since they do GCSE's like the English do and had been taken over by the English in the days of feudalism, but there must be some sort of educational authority since they are, after all, trying to keep the Welsh language alive.

I took a Scottish History Standard Grade (like an English GCSE) a year ago, and it does contain a lot of Scottish content. What it tries to do, really, is focus on the major changes throughout British society in one topic (there are three topics, that one, one on WWI, and one on Soviet Russia and Tsarist Russia before that), and also focus those changes in a narrower Scottish context as well.

Having gone through the Scottish education system very recently (I have my Advanced Higher History exam a week today) I can confirm that the Scottish history we are taught is still very boring. Certainly at Standard Grade, anyway - we did Health and Housing and the Scottish Agricultural Revolution, as you said. The former was largely about how tenements sucked and all I remember of the latter is something about how rigs (runrigs?) were all joined together to form big fields instead of little ones. Also how all the Clydesdale horses went off in the First (?) World War to get slaughtered.

Higher History is slightly better because it deals with the roots of Scottish nationalism, but then undoes that good work by making students learn the origins and rise of the SNP. Never quite figured out why.

Oh, God, you have my sympathy. Bloody runrigs and the arsing crop rotation, and not a single joke in the whole thing (unless you count confusing Jethro Tull with Uriah Heep -- and that only makes sense if you're in the early 1980s anyway). History should be about big things, about ideas and action and hitting people for various causes, and they turn it into grubbing about in the dirt and the Million and Nine Tedious Reasons why the Scottish textile industry set up on the west coast. Christ almighty, who could care?

I think this is all part of a plot to numb people to the idea of Scotland as a once-separate nation, and to subliminally associate the SNP with stuffy boredom and the odd, flat noise a rubber makes when it hits the floor in a hot classroom. Which is generally what I think of when I look at John Swinney, so it seems to be working.

Dragging this back to the proper topic, can you imagine the chaos that would occur if Britain did become part of America? We'd have to have bilingual signs to account for the discrepancies in English, presumably meaning poor Wales would have to have tri-lingual signs. :P

And it'll only get worse, once America bows to the inevitable and admits Spanish as an official language. :wink:

Good luck with the AH History. If you want to study it further, my advice is to go medieval. It's much funnier. It's all downhill after the 15th century.

The modern English education system is crap and tainted with political correctness. They teach heavily about WwII and local history, but children don't get any sort of historical perspective - it's difficult to see how they even understand why this is a kingdom or why we still have a seat at the UN, or why so much of the world still has some sort of British interest or involvement. Certainly the Act of Union would be regarded as peripheral and not worth teaching.

Well, we certainely don't do enough on the Tudors and that is the most interesting!

Well, England or the UK, cos technically the UK only really came about in full at the beginning of the eighteenth century with the Act of Union between England and Scotland.

Well, we are lead to believe that Britain has been around since like the Romans.

It gets complicated. The problem is many Americans confuse terms like England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom and tend to think they all mean the same thing.

The country's of the UK individually have existed for millenia in one form or another, but, like I said, the full United Kingdom is surprisingly young.

Please enlighten us.

SHL

Britain joining US, huh?

Oh come on; what type of a rubbish idea is this? Imperialism and nation-building like this is long dead, let it rest in its grave.

sadly, imperialism and "nation-building" are alive, if not well, in Iraq ...

anyway, Britain could never become the 51st state because the US would be faced with the knotty problem of dealing with terrorism in Northern Ireland, instead of supporting and funding it as it has in the past ...

Actualy it may no longer be an issue. We do not have a state religion and the one man one vote thing would pretty much resolve it. Unless they wanted to still go with the Irish Republic then allowing that would be our obvious choice. The IR could either join later if they wanted or all of Ireland would be one state.

SHL

give japan it's empire back!!!!!! :twisted:

*gets out his WWII rising sun flag out and a picture of his girlfriend!!!*

:lol:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/flags/ja-flag.gif

http://www.rmf.fm/muzyka/obrazki/foto/monk-1.jpg

** Then cries hot bitter tears at the loss of it all **

"Damn America!" he sputters as he blows his nose.

SHL

Well, England or the UK, cos technically the UK only really came about in full at the beginning of the eighteenth century with the Act of Union between England and Scotland.

Well, we are lead to believe that Britain has been around since like the Romans.

It gets complicated. The problem is many Americans confuse terms like England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom and tend to think they all mean the same thing.

The country's of the UK individually have existed for millenia in one form or another, but, like I said, the full United Kingdom is surprisingly young.

Please enlighten us.

SHL

1603, the Union of the Crowns: Elizabeth Tudor dies childless, and the throne of England is inherited by her relative, James VI of Scotland, who becomes James VI and I, King of Scots, England and Ireland (and at that time still claiming France and Jerusalem, IIRC). Wales, as a Principality, does not figure in this roll-call. (For the record, Wales was assimilated into England by Edward I in the late 13th century -- a process he and his successors tried, and failed, to repeat in Scotland.)

In 1707 you get the Union of the Parliaments. The Scottish Parliament agrees to join up with Westminster, and the Treaty of Union is signed. This created a political union between the two nations.

I suppose technically the UK -- United Kingdom -- came about in 1603, although the more formal political union didn't arrive until 1707. So, either way, the UK is indeed a young state compared to, say, France. But it's quite a bit older than Germany, or Italy, or the USA (which itself is older than Germany or Italy).

Both Scotland and England, as identifiable entities, date back to around the 10th-11th centuries. Wales has never been a discrete state; although it has been united briefly under powerful leaders such as Llewellyn, it's really an English construction. Ireland, too, is lacking in (ancient) political identity; there were a few High Kings, but they came and went. It owed most of its single identity to the fact that it was an island, but it still looked more of a unit from the outside than from within.

The same could be said about Roman attitudes to "Britain". They saw it as an island, and one entity -- whereas in reality it was split into numerous kingdoms and tribal lands. "Britain" as a geographical expression has been around since the end of the last ice age; as a single political entity, it's fairly recent.

http://www.kent.gov.uk/sp/kentregserv/graphics/rupert.GIF

Are you all mad? Despite the sneers and derision that goes back and forth across the Atlantic, the UK and US are good friends. I believe we are each others best friends. Ever here of the saying 'familiarity breeds contempt'?
America is still Britain writ large (politics, law, language, ethics etc.), and Britain is very much the glue that binds Europe and America together, never mind the current spat of dissagreements.

Yet.

We are two unique cultures and God preserve us both. Seperately.

Please, stop introducing a serious perspective on an otherwise silly debate. Being mostly correct has it's limitations.

SHL

OK, I had to do it. I worked the numbers of how many electoral votes the United Kingdom would receive were it to become a state.

This is based on a few presumptions of course. Number one being that the electoral college would remain at 538. Number 2 is based on the presumption that states with only 3 electoral votes would not lose any of their representation, because each state has to have 3. Number 3 is based that the population distribution for an electoral vote would raise proportionately with the increase in population were the UK to become a state. Here you all go:

The UK has an approximate population of 60,270,708. The United States has an approximate population of 293,027,571. Adding both together and using the presumptions above, the United Kingdom would have a total of 84 of the total 538 electoral votes. By comparison, California would go from 55 electoral votes down to 46. The other states would be adjusted accordingly as well.

There you all go. :)