NationStates Jolt Archive

After recent posts about opinions about the US and Britian, it appears the UK is held in a more favorable view so I wanted put the countries head to head if you like. Im not really looking to set off nationalism on either side, just want to take a poll. So please respond.

America 0%
the UK 75%




The people has spoken!

America 0%
the UK 75%




The people has spoken!
easy there killer its only 3 votes, lets give it sometime lol

In terms of Government, both are laughably strangled by red tape and innefficiency, but I have to hold the UK in a slightly higher view (not that America is low, far from it, but just marginaly lower) because the people's outlook on life is slightly more in agreement with mine.

easy there killer its only 3 votes, lets give it sometime lol

Nonsense, it doesn't say anywhere in my post how many votes. I merely provided irrefutable proof that ******* is rubbish. (censored to prevent being banned due to trolling.. you never know if the mods are ***** (also censored to prevent offending the mods))

both countries have favourable and not-so-favourable facets... but on balance i'd say i prefer the UK simply because american politics is yet more right-wing in general than ours, and the intertwining of politics and religion - and the sheer pervasiveness of religion in the country - still strikes me as backwards. that, plus i dislike the bush administration and find the obsession with capitalism (and indoctrinated hatred of all forms of socialism) quite upsetting at times. the country has its good points of course, and the UK has many, many negative points to its name, but on balance i prefer the UK

In terms of Government, both are laughably strangled by red tape and innefficiency, but I have to hold the UK in a slightly higher view (not that America is low, far from it, but just marginaly lower) because the people's outlook on life is slightly more in agreement with mine.I'd have to agree with this. There are actually a lot of things that the USA has that I wish the UK had - impeccable customer service, for example - but like Zorpbuggery, the UK's general outlook is more in line with mine (in terms of politics, religion, various things).

However, I've always lived here, so I'm sure that would be why. Then again, if I had been born elsewhere and my outlook been consequently different, would I be me..? I'll shut up now before I start philosophising.

both countries have favourable and not-so-favourable facets... but on balance i'd say i prefer the UK simply because american politics is yet more right-wing in general than ours, and the intertwining of politics and religion - and the sheer pervasiveness of religion in the country - still strikes me as backwards. that, plus i dislike the bush administration and find the obsession with capitalism (and indoctrinated hatred of all forms of socialism) quite upsetting at times. the country has its good points of course, and the UK has many, many negative points to its name, but on balance i prefer the UK
Interesting points, I would have to agree with you on the religious point, I wonder if people understand the meaning of seperation of chruch and state. As an atheist it scares me.

both countries have favourable and not-so-favourable facets... but on balance i'd say i prefer the UK simply because american politics is yet more right-wing in general than ours, and the intertwining of politics and religion - and the sheer pervasiveness of religion in the country - still strikes me as backwards. that, plus i dislike the bush administration and find the obsession with capitalism (and indoctrinated hatred of all forms of socialism) quite upsetting at times. the country has its good points of course, and the UK has many, many negative points to its name, but on balance i prefer the UK

^What he said.

Despite the fact that the UK is the biggest exporter of arms to the third world I'd still say it's better than America. Not good, but better.

America blows sometimes.
The U.K. blows sometimes.
But then there's the other side of America,
and Scotland, the best kingdom in the United Kingdom.
[/American's Opinion]

What about Canada eh?

OH MY GOD. How many more topics like this are we going to get?

A "U.S. vs. UK" thread pops up every month without fail.

We can all guess how this thread will go:

WW2!
GDP!
OMG UBER MILITARY!
EU!
BUSH!
BLAIR!
EUROPE!
THE WORLD!
WE HAVE BETTER APC'S THAN YOU!

Please. Enough of these threads.

I'm convinced that UNAmbassadorship is a regular user who just made that account to see if people would really bite at his ridiculously "Team America: World Police" statements.

America

Fuck yeah!

I live in the UK and have visted the US twice, once California and once New York and the surrounding states.

Some things are better in the US, but undoubtedly i'd prefer to live here. Then again, I got a much different impression vising the different states - I really could live in California quite happily, but just wasn't too keen on the east coast. I suspect I wouldn't be able to stand the south at all.

I'm convinced that UNAmbassadorship is a regular user who just made that account to see if people would really bite at his ridiculously "Team America: World Police" statements.

America

Fuck yeah!
Michiganians, or Michiganers, are always the funniest and most random.

Thus, why I voted: NO OPINION

Could you choose between a kilt and a Ford? Edinburg (sp?) or Lansing? [random castle in Scotland, forgot] or Fort Mackinac? No. No, I can't.

After recent posts about opinions about the US and Britian, it appears the UK is held in a more favorable view so I wanted put the countries head to head if you like. Im not really looking to set off nationalism on either side, just want to take a poll. So please respond.
Since America is my home, I can't very well say that I veiw them equally, but the UK is definitely in second place, way ahead of so-called "allies" like France and Russia. :)

Although I don't know the USA I've voted for the UK, 'cause is more similar to the rest of europe, so to me and my country. It doesn't mean I completely dislike USA, I've got many friends over there, but we normally share the critics to their country, in general the same as said above (religion, military, etc)

And finally, America, it's not a country, are many and I'm tired of reading it.;)

And finally, America, it's not a country, are many and I'm tired of reading it.;)
Then don't read it anymore, you twit! :p

Then again, I got a much different impression vising the different states - I really could live in California quite happily, but just wasn't too keen on the east coast. I suspect I wouldn't be able to stand the south at all.Likewise! I really liked the Californian way of life, and could probably live there alright. Haven't been right on the East coast, but I was in Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh, to be precise) and while it was alright, I certainly couldn't live there. I've also been to Arizona, Nevada, Illinois and Wisconsin; they all have really nice points, but the one I'd adapt to best is still California, I think. Possibly followed by Wisconsin, but then again it was some time since I was there and my memory could be tainted.

As an atheist, I don't think I could deal with living in the so-called Bible Belt. I'm sure the religiousness doesn't pervade everything there, but from what I understand (and I can only go on what I've heard), it is an issue.

Californication....

What about Canada eh?

Eh?

Don't you mention Canada to me esquire! For they are a load of baby seal clubbers, and as such are lowly!

Michiganians, or Michiganers, are always the funniest and most random.

Thus, why I voted: NO OPINION

Could you choose between a kilt and a Ford? Edinburg (sp?) or Lansing? [random castle in Scotland, forgot] or Fort Mackinac? No. No, I can't.

Exactly, one isn't really better than the other, they're just different.

Also, as one earlier poster mentioned there are great differences between the states. Also, there are huge differences between the home countries of the UK. Comparing Wyoming and England aren't exactly fair, as Wyoming wouldn't fill a medium sized city in England. Also, comparing California and Wales wouldn't be all that fair, because California is so much bigger, and people seem to like it so much.

Anyway, I was stationed in Germany for two years and really loved Europe. I'm hoping to go back for a few years, hopefully to teach English (in France hopefully, I'm a French major at school) when I'm done with school.

Either way, while I'd like to move back to Europe, but I'll always have a special place in my heart for Michigan.

And finally, America, it's not a country, are many and I'm tired of reading it.;)

There are worse things you can read. Like a Jeffrey Archer novel for example.

this is actually a tough one, the uk has given us amazing music, some great films, incredible tv shows and so on. On the other hand america has given us mostly rubbish crunch rock although there are some exceptions such as television and talking heads , also an array of great movies,e.g. ghostbusters in addition to the dt series by stephen king and its not as drab and grey as the uk.

Then again, I got a much different impression vising the different states - I really could live in California quite happily, but just wasn't too keen on the east coast. I suspect I wouldn't be able to stand the south at all.
good point. ditto.

ps: san francisco rules! :)

There's nothing like a woman with UK accent :)

There's nothing like a woman with UK accent :)

A UK accent? One accent? For everyone?

*places a Londoner next to a Glaswegian and laughs as they try to conduct a conversation*

After recent posts about opinions about the US and Britian, it appears the UK is held in a more favorable view so I wanted put the countries head to head if you like. Im not really looking to set off nationalism on either side, just want to take a poll. So please respond.

I can tell you right now, the brits will win this poll.

So much for International Studies, especially on this board :D

There's nothing like a woman with UK accent :)

That's probably 'cause there's no such thing as a 'UK' accent ;). There are many different and distinct accents right across the UK. Heck, even if you discount Wales, Scotland and N. Ireland from the equation there are many different and distinct accents in England alone. A person from one end of the country can often have trouble understanding a word somebody from the other end of the country is saying, and vice-versa.

And nobody can understand Brummies but Brumies. :D

There's nothing like a woman with UK accent :)
A UK accent?

No such thing.

A UK accent? One accent? For everyone?

*places a Londoner next to a Glaswegian and laughs as they try to conduct a conversation*
Well, put somebody from one part of Belfast beside somebody from another part of Belfast and laugh as they try to conduct a conversation...you don't even need to get people from opposite ends of the country.

Well, put somebody from one part of Belfast beside somebody from another part of Belfast and laugh as they try to conduct a conversation...you don't even need to get people from opposite ends of the country.

Arf! Too right ;)

And nobody can understand Brummies but Brumies. :D
brummies are alright... its the scousers i can't understand... speaking their own little language... weird. especially difficult for a posh southern boy like me ;)
i guess if there is a "UK accent", i have something approximating that stereotype (kinda like Hugh Grant but less twatty)

Interesting points, I would have to agree with you on the religious point, I wonder if people understand the meaning of seperation of chruch and state. As an atheist it scares me.


Good point, I voted uk but if it was the US thats its founding principles exeplify I would have said america. It seems like the U.S. had completely forgotten about the founding fathers and the constitution except when they want to find some obscure quote taken out of context or incomplete to justify owning guns or starting wars

brummies are alright... its the scousers i can't understand... speaking their own little language... weird. especially difficult for a posh southern boy like me ;)
i guess if there is a "UK accent", i have something approximating that stereotype (kinda like Hugh Grant but less twatty)

Your actual RP accents are very much in decline. Some brand of esturian accent is probably more representative...

Well, put somebody from one part of Belfast beside somebody from another part of Belfast and laugh as they try to conduct a conversation...you don't even need to get people from opposite ends of the country.*imagines a Belfast spide trying to conduct a conversation with someone from Cherryvalley*

Your actual RP accents are very much in decline. Some brand of esturian accent is probably more representative...
sadly true. :(
i blame eastenders and the chavs

*imagines a Belfast spide trying to conduct a conversation with someone from Cherryvalley*
Exactly :)

i guess if there is a "UK accent", i have something approximating that stereotype (kinda like Hugh Grant but less twatty)

Same, and I wish I didn't. I really wish I had a nice Barnsley, Sheffield or Leeds accent.

Then again, rather what i've got than scouser, brummie or cockney.

I'm convinced that UNAmbassadorship is a regular user who just made that account to see if people would really bite at his ridiculously "Team America: World Police" statements.

America

Fuck yeah!

Well he's actually filled in a bit of back story which is more than most puppets do. I fondly remember "Loyal Christians's" five word posts.

In what context?
The politics?
The people?
The scenery?
The food?
The fashion?
The religion?
The sport?
The Health care?
The Education.

Ooo Oooo! How about the history?

Same, and I wish I didn't. I really wish I had a nice Barnsley, Sheffield or Leeds accent.
eeeeeww.... ;)
no, i'm actually quite happy with this accent. i feel like a totally posh wanker when i go 'up north' but i just avoid going up there and i'm fine! :p

Michiganians, or Michiganers, are always the funniest and most random.

Thus, why I voted: NO OPINION

Could you choose between a kilt and a Ford? Edinburg (sp?) or Lansing? [random castle in Scotland, forgot] or Fort Mackinac? No. No, I can't.

Hells teeth ya numpty, if ye cannae be ersed tae look up Edinburgh oan the internet they yer so lazy it beggars belief.
http://earth.google.com

I would say UK but I'm too afraid of being bombed

I would say UK but I'm too afraid of being bombed

uh?

Hells teeth ya numpty, if ye cannae be ersed tae look up Edinburgh oan the internet they yer so lazy it beggars belief.
http://earth.google.com
:p

I'll look next time...laugh out loud!

Exactly, one isn't really better than the other, they're just different...Either way, while I'd like to move back to Europe, but I'll always have a special place in my heart for Michigan.
Yeah, someone who gets it! :p

I'm convinced that UNAmbassadorship is a regular user who just made that account to see if people would really bite at his ridiculously "Team America: World Police" statements.

America

Fuck yeah!
Im convinced you spelled my name wrong. Im also convinced I dont know what you are talking about but interesting theory.

Hmm. I've been to London in the UK (and also been to Dublin, which is close :p) and New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and Nashville in the States.. While I really liked the US, UK has rugby and cricket, so I can't go against that.

Hmm. I've been to London and Dublin in the UK and New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and Nashville in the States.. While I really liked the US, UK has rugby and cricket, so I can't go against that.*grins* Careful who you share that knowledge with, sir. ;)

Hmm. I've been to London and Dublin in the UK and New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and Nashville in the States.. While I really liked the US, UK has rugby and cricket, so I can't go against that.*grins* Careful who you share that knowledge with, sir. ;)Yeah, I was thinking that..! :p Easy mistake to make if you're not from round these parts, though.

Hmm. I've been to London and Dublin in the UK and New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and Nashville in the States.. While I really liked the US, UK has rugby and cricket, so I can't go against that.

Nashville? You in Tennessee for fun?

Yeah, I was thinking that..! :p Easy mistake to make if you're not from round these parts, though.But it's like saying I've been to NYC and Toronto in America. And I've been to Sydney and Auckland in Australia. I thought they were both nice countries.

Nashville? You in Tennessee for fun?
When I went there I was like 12. It was a holiday though, yes.

Fuck. My bad. Just realised heh.
I should know better than that, being half Irish and all.

I voted for the UK. But I don't have any problems with america. They are our greatest allie these days and I have had the pleasure of visiting Nashville, Vegas, Arizona, LA, and New york. Nice country, nice people, but wasn't quite the same as home. I agree with the whole politics and religion thing in the states.

Anyway, I'm heading up to michigan later this hopefully took hook up with a great american woman. You never know, my opinion might change:D

Fuck. My bad. Just realised heh.
I should know better than that, being half Irish and all.Meh, we all make mistakes. I had to look up Canada on the internet because I just couldn't think of any Canadian city. I later remembered that Vancouver was actually in Canada. >.<

to the british i say YORKTOWN.
to the americans i say TEXAN.

thus i voted no opinion.

and i'm american btw

And nobody can understand Brummies but Brumies. :D

My aunt is from Birmingham and I'm Canadian, and we understand each other quite well actually.

I'm English and I voted America. Both countries suck in a lot of ways, but I don't want people to think that the UK is somehow better than the USA. I've lived in both, and the USA is funner.

Yorktown was a battle in the American war of independence, right? Surprisingly enough we don't get taught about the that war in British schools. Instead we have a heavy dose of WWII, Henry VIII ('The' stereotypical King - Loot the monastaries, 7 wives with 7 bags, with 7 cats, with 7 kits [How many were going to St Ives?] (he only really had the wives), piss on the Spanish, be a general gluton and become one fat guy), and the civil war (Down with Charles and his Catholics and his Cavaliers! Wait, no theatre?! Reinstate the king! What do you mean he has no head?! Well reinstate his son then!)

That's basically what I got from my school history lessons...

I'm convinced that UNAmbassadorship is a regular user who just made that account to see if people would really bite at his ridiculously "Team America: World Police" statements.

America

Fuck yeah!

d*cks, p*ssies and a*sholes

Yorktown was a battle in the American war of independence, right? Surprisingly enough we don't get taught about the that war in British schools. Instead we have a heavy dose of WWII, Henry VIII ('The' stereotypical King - Loot the monastaries, 7 wives with 7 bags, with 7 cats, with 7 kits [How many were going to St Ives?] (he only really had the wives), piss on the Spanish, be a general gluton and become one fat guy), and the civil war (Down with Charles and his Catholics and his Cavaliers! Wait, no theatre?! Reinstate the king! What do you mean he has no head?! Well reinstate his son then!)

That's basically what I got from my school history lessons...

Yorktown was the decisive battle in the American Revolution (a term I hate), where George Washington, the US and their French allies defeated the British to end the physical war. Two years later, the Treaty of Paris was signed to officially end the war.

Oh, high school "history"...it's nothing more than nationalistic propaganda and it's upsetting. It's the reason I want to become a History teacher because it sickens me what people are learning...nobody's getting the "real" story, because then it would make the country look bad. :rolleyes: Sigh...

I in the US, born and raised here. I've been all over, including the UK.
I'd choose the US over anyplace.

I have nothing in particular against the UK. I consider them good friends and allies. I have friends and one family member that are British that live here in the US and friends that still live in the UK.

Where is the option I hate them both? Gotta be fair, some have a negative view of both of them.

Both the US and the UK have some strong points in their favour.
The UK isn't the US, and the US is far away.
:P

Yorktown was a battle in the American war of independence, right? Surprisingly enough we don't get taught about the that war in British schools. Instead we have a heavy dose of WWII, Henry VIII ('The' stereotypical King - Loot the monastaries, 7 wives with 7 bags, with 7 cats, with 7 kits [How many were going to St Ives?] (he only really had the wives), piss on the Spanish, be a general gluton and become one fat guy), and the civil war (Down with Charles and his Catholics and his Cavaliers! Wait, no theatre?! Reinstate the king! What do you mean he has no head?! Well reinstate his son then!)

That's basically what I got from my school history lessons...

That's not what we were taught, we learnt a lot about American History. Too much in my opinion. There were topics on the slavery, the civil rights movement, the great depression, Vietnam, the cold war and the watergate scandal at GCSE. I think schools get offered a wide choice of different periods of History to teach. At A level we were given a choice between Modern European or Early Modern European history. I went with Early Modern European, but there were like 10 other topics on the exam paper ranging from Indian independence to the Israeli-Arab war we could have done.

That's not what we were taught, we learnt a lot about American History. Too much in my opinion. There were topics on the slavery, the civil rights movement, the great depression, Vietnam, the cold war and the watergate scandal at GCSE. I think schools get offered a wide choice of different periods of History to teach. At A level we were given a choice between Modern European or Early Modern European history. I went with Early Modern European, but there were like 10 other topics on the exam paper ranging from Indian independence to the Israeli-Arab war we could have done.

sorry to hijack the thread but...
schools teach based on what books they already have so they dont have to buy new ones. This explains why over GCSE and A-Level our school taught us WW1 twice, the nazis twice, and Liberal reforms -yes you've guessed it- twice :(

I live in the UK and have visted the US twice, once California and once New York and the surrounding states.

Some things are better in the US, but undoubtedly i'd prefer to live here. Then again, I got a much different impression vising the different states - I really could live in California quite happily, but just wasn't too keen on the east coast. I suspect I wouldn't be able to stand the south at all.


I live in the south. It isn't bad, not great and I would rather live in San Diego than here, but its because I'm not old and I can keep up with the pace of southern Cali. Everyone that i know that moved from California actually likes it here so I guess nobody really knows what they like/dislike until they try it.

eeeeeww.... ;)
no, i'm actually quite happy with this accent. i feel like a totally posh wanker when i go 'up north' but i just avoid going up there and i'm fine! :p
Mmm... your accent.... :fluffle: ;)

On-topic, I'd have to agree with a lot of the Brits who say certain aspects of America are nicer but overall I think I prefer the UK *nods* Though that depends on the area, obviously.

both countries have favourable and not-so-favourable facets... but on balance i'd say i prefer the UK simply because american politics is yet more right-wing in general than ours, and the intertwining of politics and religion - and the sheer pervasiveness of religion in the country - still strikes me as backwards. that, plus i dislike the bush administration and find the obsession with capitalism (and indoctrinated hatred of all forms of socialism) quite upsetting at times. the country has its good points of course, and the UK has many, many negative points to its name, but on balance i prefer the UK

I chose to stop reading this thread here, because Pure Metal has the kind of opinion I hope everyone has, so I dont want ot disappoint myself by looking further.

Personally, Nationalism included, I would put myself on the USA side.

Given a certain level of intraspection and the fact I enjoy being open minded, I voted 'No Opinion', because in truth I really do(without the cloud of National Pride).

I have posted on several occasions I am Irish and Tsitsistas (Cheyenne) so historically I would love to see them both lie in ashes, but hey.

They however have had their go, and while no two countries are more capable of sickening apathy given their great influence and power---their potential for inexhaustable good can not be ignored.

Addressing Pure Metal directly, I believe you are too harsh on Religion.
Faith, is truly an individual issue--it is so pervasive because so many here are believers. Mere demographics true for any place in the world, nothing more nothing less. India is not backwards because of all the Hindi..so forth and so on. The UK could easily be called backwards for having such Parties doing relatively well in politics like the Racist BNP---it could be, but not really.

But regaurdless your opinion is the kind of even handed thinking that these boards and this world need.

On Bush, meh, he will be a memory in short order--politics is like Michigan weather--wiat five minutes and it will change.

From one thieving liar to another.

No, I hold the US/UK on the same level--just how or low that is? I am not really certain.

Isee no reason to slam anyones nation or anyone who has pride in it--and insulting politicians isnt even sport, now complimenting them...that takes a skill and intuition as yet unseen in man.

The Sceptred Isle, of course :)

Good point, I voted uk but if it was the US thats its founding principles exeplify I would have said america. It seems like the U.S. had completely forgotten about the founding fathers and the constitution except when they want to find some obscure quote taken out of context or incomplete to justify owning guns or starting wars

"The right to bear arms".....YEP, I'd say we have definatlely taken that out of context...:rolleyes:

The Sceptred Isle, of course :)

The Seat of Kings...

The Seat of Kings...
And Queens, of course. Elisabeth was the island's greatest Monarch.

And Queens, of course. Elisabeth was the island's greatest Monarch.

I think you'll find she had the heart of a King, and a King of England too! (in her own words)

That was a good speech...

"My loving people,

We have been persuaded by some that are careful of our safety, to take heed how we commit our selves to armed multitudes, for fear of treachery; but I assure you I do not desire to live to distrust my faithful and loving people. Let tyrants fear, I have always so behaved myself that, under God, I have placed my chiefest strength and safeguard in the loyal hearts and good-will of my subjects; and therefore I am come amongst you, as you see, at this time, not for my recreation and disport, but being resolved, in the midst and heat of the battle, to live and die amongst you all; to lay down for my God, and for my kingdom, and my people, my honour and my blood, even in the dust.

I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too, and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm; to which rather than any dishonour shall grow by me, I myself will take up arms, I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field.

I know already, for your forwardness you have deserved rewards and crowns; and We do assure you in the word of a prince, they shall be duly paid you. In the mean time, my lieutenant general shall be in my stead, than whom never prince commanded a more noble or worthy subject; not doubting but by your obedience to my general, by your concord in the camp, and your valour in the field, we shall shortly have a famous victory over those enemies of my God, of my kingdom, and of my people."

I think you'll find she had the heart of a King, and a King of England too! (in her own words)

That was a good speech...
Please, many Kings paled by comparison to her countenance. She was a mighty woman, as was her sister, Queen Mary of the Scots. Patrilineality in the British monarchical system is unjustified, especially since some of its greatest monarchs were women. She did her country proud as a Queen, whether or not possessing elements commonly ascribed to a King. A bloody shame she had to call herself a King when she served perfectly as a Queen.

brummies are alright... its the scousers i can't understand... speaking their own little language... weird. especially difficult for a posh southern boy like me ;)

On a different not it is really hard understanding those swish southerners....


Hahaha :P sorry.

I like Britain, but having visited the US, they also have some good points. Like REALLY BIG food. :P I am a man of simple pleasures haha

I've lived in both the UK and America. I like both but prefer the UK for the sheer culture and history alone. Many positive things about the USA just not enough to outweigh the UK. Canada is however the perfect blend of the UK and N. America- they serve pints!

Keep in mind that i'm none of the above

I hold a better view of the UK. I think the British are far more capable in governing. In fact I think America would be in much better shape today if it still was a British colony.


Its a shame that Great Britain doesnt occupy 1/4 of the world anymore...a damn shame.

I hold a better view of the UK. I think the British are far more capable in governing. In fact I think America would be in much better shape today if it still was a British colony.


Its a shame that Great Britain doesnt occupy 1/4 of the world anymore...a damn shame.
True...too true. :(

they're equally disgusting politically.. therefore i didn't poll vote.

And nobody can understand Brummies but Brumies. :D

In the same vein as "What do you call a man with a spade in his head? Dug"....

What do you call a Brummie who jumps into water..? Dive!


(Darnit, harder to write than to say...)

America 0%
the UK 75%




The people has spoken!
Ah look at the state of the British educational system...

Proper English would be "the people have spoken"

Same, and I wish I didn't. I really wish I had a nice Barnsley, Sheffield or Leeds accent.Repeat after me:

Wor dunt thi spake reet? Ah si thi aint frum rarndear... Alavver bi!er, erna paki tonuts.

(I may be mixing Barnsley and Sheffield with the above... And there are the Dee-daas and the Thee-thaas, even then. ;))

Now, for your homework, differentiate between a snicket and ginnel/jinnel.

Its a shame that Great Britain doesnt occupy 1/4 of the world anymore...a damn shame.

Are you claiming that Northern Ireland is occupied territory?

Yorktown was a battle in the American war of independence, right? Surprisingly enough we don't get taught about the that war in British schools. Instead we have a heavy dose of WWII, Henry VIII ('The' stereotypical King - Loot the monastaries, 7 wives with 7 bags, with 7 cats, with 7 kits [How many were going to St Ives?] (he only really had the wives), piss on the Spanish, be a general gluton and become one fat guy)

Huh? What does Henry VIII has to do with someone who had seven wives?

Are you claiming that Northern Ireland is occupied territory?


Actually I think that Ireland should be considered native British territory. When I mentioned 1/4 0f the world I was thinking about previous colonies such as America,India,Canada etc.

Another joke... Repeated purely for comedy value, not my own commentary (and I imagine the Merkins among the readership know people like this, anyway and laugh at them from their own side of the pond... ;))


'Typical' US tourists on coach tour of England (or Britain, but you know how that one goes) find themselves at Oxford University, and are being shown through the buildings of one of the colleges...

They are itnruiged by the architecture and the wife ask one of the resident Porters "I say, is this college pre-war?"

He replies "Ma'am, this college is pre-America"...


Right, that's enough for now.

Actually I think that Ireland should be considered native British territory.

Even Eire?

Even Eire?


Isnt Eire a word that is simply another(similar) name for Ireland??

Isnt Eire a word that is simply another(similar) name for Ireland??

Eire as in the Republic of Ireland.

After recent posts about opinions about the US and Britian, it appears the UK is held in a more favorable view so I wanted put the countries head to head if you like. Im not really looking to set off nationalism on either side, just want to take a poll. So please respond.
Easy for this Canuck.....the answer is the UK. The reasons would be many.

Eire as in the Republic of Ireland.

Ok then yes I believe even the new republic of Ireland should be considered native British territory.

I'm biased. I live in New York :). Now if you had 3 choices with New York as one of them, well we can just see how it would be 400 votes for NY, 1 for UK and 1 for US.

I'm biased. I live in New York :). Now if you had 3 choices with New York as one of them, well we can just see how it would be 400 votes for NY, 1 for UK and 1 for US.
Monaco would own any choice you put there. One day it shall annex France, and rise to power. Assuming France simply surrenders. :p

Ok then yes I believe even the new republic of Ireland should be considered native British territory.
New?

The Republic is nearly 60 years old.

The state itself is 85 years old.

Hardly "new".

New?

The Republic is nearly 60 years old.

The state itself is 85 years old.

Hardly "new".


Its new considering the age of everyother nation surrounding it.

Its new considering the age of everyother nation surrounding it.

How old is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

Its new considering the age of everyother nation surrounding it.
Well, if we consider all the nations of Europe it's positively middle aged.

I think you have a strange point of view if you consider any nation that you cannot recall hearing of , or wouldn't be able to remember anyway, the formation of as "new".

How old is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
The same age?

Unless you want to go with 6 years younger or 22 years older (depending on whether you are talking about the Republic in comparison with the current UK or just the Free State)

i want you all to look up at the top of your browser. see the address bar? good.

read it. "forums.jolt.co.uk

this is a british site. of course views are gonna be slanted towards the uk.

but in the global sense, i know not everyone loves my country. i guess we just kick to much ass.

i want you all to look up at the top of your browser. see the address bar? good.

read it. "forums.jolt.co.uk

this is a british site. of course views are gonna be slanted towards the uk.

but in the global sense, i know not everyone loves my country. i guess we just kick to much ass.
No.

It's hosted in the UK.

The US has roughly 45% of the posters in NS General (if I'm remembering the last poll correctly...)

It's hosted in the UK.

And owned by a former colonial.

The same age?

Well, thorny territory here. As best I understand it the UK of GB and NI is considered just to be an alteration of the UK of GB and Ireland (formed in 1801), and as such it is only 205 years old. People in the UK don't seem to like this fact, as it makes the UK a newer nation than the USA...

As far as the question goes....I think if I really had to pick in terms of where I'd live, it'd be the US because it has California. It rains too much in the UK...

Historically, though, I favour the British, because I think the British Empire was one of the most impressive political units ever assembled. It didn't quite nearly have the longevity of the Roman Empire, but it was the second biggest empire history's ever seen (the Mongols created a bigger empire) and certainly the empire with the greatest breadth and reach. No continent wasn't influenced by Britain in some way, and that in itself is an impressive feat.

Maybe one day the US will create something as impressive, but for now, the British Empire set the bar quite high.

Monaco would own any choice you put there. One day it shall annex France, and rise to power. Assuming France simply surrenders. :p

Knowing the French, they may do just that... :D

Well, thorny territory here. As best I understand it the UK of GB and NI is considered just to be an alteration of the UK of GB and Ireland (formed in 1801), and as such it is only 205 years old. People in the UK don't seem to like this fact, as it makes the UK a newer nation than the USA...

Was that really a new country or just a reinterpretation of what had already existed? England ruled Scotland for hundreds of years before "formally" uniting with them in 1707, doing the same with Ireland in 1801. It's not like there was an independent Ireland existing before 1801 that was "united" with England/Scotland in that year- if there was, then you'd be able to make the argument that the UK is in fact younger than it actually is.

I say America in general sucks. About half people here are too conservative and proud/arrogant for my taste. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to live in any other nation because a lot of the people think all Americans are that way.

There would be no US if wasnt because of UK.

so respect the founder. UK.

The UK -- I admit that I am afflicted with an acute case of Anglophilia. :) Now I am very much looking forward to my third visit to 'this scepter'd isle'.

eh, I guess i'm going to go for the USA.

At the moment I'm actually sitting about 200 yards from where the Jamestown colonists first landed on Cape Henry in Virginia. (oddly called First Landing Memorial, and it is in the middle of an Army base)

Don't get me wrong, i have nothing against the Brits and the UK is number 2 on my list of countries outside the US to visit when i get around to it. Germany being First(probably the more likely too)

I enjoy my "right to bear arms" however the fuck you want to interpet it, I shoot for fun, yes i do redneckish things like take an Old TV out that doesn't work and video tape it as a I put .270 High Powered Rifle round through the screen. I also go to indoor pistol ranges and practice with my Sig .45 because I want to be a cop and marksmanship is part of the job(part of my military job as well)

So I buy guns, and lets face it, I wouldn't if the Army would just let me take home my issued Weapon. (then again I'd have a M-249, M-9, and M-16A2 in my house so i can sorta see why they DON'T)


But Anyway, UK is cool, (I just drank Newcastle for the first time tonight, Good beer, I enjoyed it)

view them the same / equally / no opinion

Was that really a new country or just a reinterpretation of what had already existed? England ruled Scotland for hundreds of years before "formally" uniting with them in 1707, doing the same with Ireland in 1801. It's not like there was an independent Ireland existing before 1801 that was "united" with England/Scotland in that year- if there was, then you'd be able to make the argument that the UK is in fact younger than it actually is.
Well, it depends what you class as "independent"

There was certainly an independent Parliament of Ireland in Dublin once Poyning's Law was repealed in 1782.

Of course, in 1800 it got abolished by the Act of Union.

Was that really a new country or just a reinterpretation of what had already existed?

Thorny territory, as I said. Certainly the UK did not exist before the 1800 Act of Union - prior to that the closest thing was the Kingdom of Great Britain.

I went on holiday to Manhattan a while ago, expecting to see a vibrant city with the best of everything the world has to offer. I was only there for five days, but what I saw did not impress me. Everywhere is cordoned off from everywhere else; people could live on different floors of the same skyscraper their whole lives and never even know of each other's existance. Everywhere has air conditioning, meaning that the inside of every building smells like the inside of a car. Central park is meant to be great, but it just seemed to be like any small British tourist park only more run down and less scenic. The natural history museum was average, with rubbish food. When mum dragged me around the so-called "fashion district" all we could see were things which looked like curtains sewn together.

But two things disturbed me the most:
1. The Macdonalds at the centre of town was awful. It was as though it was stuck in the eighties, with that cleaning fluid which causes your shoes to stick to the floor, old style signs and decoration, and the menu was unchanged since that time. Not even a McChicken burger.

2. The infrastructure was OLD. The bridges into town were rusting and the paint was flaking off, and the subways were AWFUL. It felt as though the structure would collapse, or the train would slide off the tracks at any moment.

If this is the heart of the main city in America, then I'd rather live on a tacky estate in Hackney. It has more character.

I live in America and have never been to the UK so i would have to say the US is better. Though my opinion probably would not change if i were to go anyway.

When mum dragged me around the so-called "fashion district" all we could see were things which looked like curtains sewn together.Yes, even thinking about being in that part of Manhatten makes me want to commit violent acts. I've never been, but the thought of seeing people get spending hundreds of dollars on, and becoming overwhelmed about, a piece of bloody material is very much not to my liking (to put it mildly).

You can't avoid that crap here, either, but at least we only have High Street shops!

I live in America and have never been to the UK so i would have to say the US is better. Though my opinion probably would not change if i were to go anyway.

Love the openmindedness you have going there ;)

I live in America and have never been to the UK so i would have to say the US is better. Though my opinion probably would not change if i were to go anyway.

Is this the way Americans form opinions? Only have information about one side and will disregard any new information anyway.

Was that really a new country or just a reinterpretation of what had already existed? England ruled Scotland for hundreds of years before "formally" uniting with them in 1707, doing the same with Ireland in 1801. It's not like there was an independent Ireland existing before 1801 that was "united" with England/Scotland in that year- if there was, then you'd be able to make the argument that the UK is in fact younger than it actually is.

Before the 'formal' union of Scotland and England in 1707 was the Union of the Crowns... and it was the existing Scottish King who then became the King of England as well, so really it was Scotland taking over England and not the other way around.

UK! God save the queen! Don't even need to think only a split second about it.
The US immensely sucks donkey balls while the UK looks like an interesting place to live.

I love my country. But more than that, I love THE country. I want to live out in a nice, lush, green piece of country and be left the hell alone, by and large.

That rules out Britain because all the nice, lush, green pieces of country are too blasted expensive for me to ever afford.

I'll be remaining in America. :)

Before the 'formal' union of Scotland and England in 1707 was the Union of the Crowns... and it was the existing Scottish King who then became the King of England as well, so really it was Scotland taking over England and not the other way around.

Technically, you're right. Still, though, in practice it turned to an English annexation, since the capital wasn't shifted to Edinburgh. Regardless, it still leads to a country that's significantly older than 1801- it was either established in 1066 (following the Battle of Hastings and the Norman Conquest) or in 843 (when Kenneth I united the Picts and the Scots as Scotland).

Mon the Scots!! :sniper: :mp5:

I voted Britain! whaay

A democracy where the corruption is overt (lobbyists anyone?) or a constitutional monarchy where the corruption is done in quiet style (aah, gentlemen's clubs).

I love my country. So very, very much.

Although the American South is nice. I love Arkansas, Tennessee, Texas... character, nice people and DELICIOUS cuisine. Particularly San Antonio, I'd heartily recommend it to anyone for a visit.

I voted The Land of Hope and Glory, Mother of the Free beacuse,
its best palce for Cerominal and Militray pagents, no one really can do it better. Plus its nice to go live in acountry where folks dont understand each other even if there living two mile away from each other and also the Good old British RSM and decent Folk Music

Technically, you're right. Still, though, in practice it turned to an English annexation, since the capital wasn't shifted to Edinburgh. Regardless, it still leads to a country that's significantly older than 1801- it was either established in 1066 (following the Battle of Hastings and the Norman Conquest) or in 843 (when Kenneth I united the Picts and the Scots as Scotland).

I think the best way of looking at this is to state that the United Kingdom in the strictest constitutional sense was only founded in 1801, but that said foundation evolved out of previously established nations and states. Hence England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales all existed before the various Acts of Union between 1536 [Wales] and 1801 , and that none of them ceased to exist on some [I]de jure level after the various Acts of Union, even though the recognition of separate existence and separate institutions varied between those acts. Therefore while the institution of the 'United Kingdom' is, de jure, a 19th-century creation, the consitutuent components of that Kingdom are centuries older.

It's possible to endlessly dispute when all of those British nations came into being, however. Just to take RomeW's examples, both 1066 for England and 843 for Scotland can be seriously disputed. Those dates arguably only mark the beginning of dynastic continuity, in that all Scottish monarchs were descended from Kenneth I after 843 (with the possible exception of Macbeth), and all English monarchs were descended from William I after 1066.

However, if we were to look at territorial continuity, the dates would be subject to significant change. Clearly there was a 'Kingdom of England' before William I and the Battle of Hastings. Borders were of course subject to change, but the House of Wessex and the family of Cnut already ruled what is recognisably England, with Alfred the Great the first to style himself 'King of England' in the late 9th century. In Scotland, meanwhile, while the foundations of the kingdom very much date back to the 9th century, a settled constitutional and dynastic order (I'm not counting tanistry as a 'settled dynastic order') with more or less recognisable borders only really comes into existence with Malcolm III Canmore in 1058. Part of the problem is that English kings are only counted from William I - so even though there are three Anglo-Saxon Kings called Edward before William I (Edward the Elder, Edward the Martyr and Edward the Confessor), numbering only begins with Edward I some 250 years after Edward the Confessor. But this is only a convention done to mark the very real dynastic change of 1066 - from the perspective of the overall continuity of English history, Edward VIII would have been far better labelled as Edward XI.

So from this perspective it would be far better to say that England and Scotland evolved out of 9th century institutions (themselves with earlier roots in Wessex, Dalriada, and the Kingdom of the Picts), reaching a recognisable state as the medieval kingdoms of England and Scotland in the mid-11th century.

Ireland and Wales are far more complicated, not least because of their history of occasional unity but more frequent disunity, combined with centuries of partial English control of the margins before London attempted to exert stronger central control in the Tudor period. So I won't even begin to get started.

But hopefully I've at least demonstrated that this whole question of 'age' and 'foundation' is considerably more complicated, involved, and - dare I say it - interesting - than your average two paragraph NS post might suggest.

...and all English monarchs were descended from William I after 1066.I am ill-educated on this point, but I distinctly remember it being said (by people who should know) that with the marriage (temporary though it was) between Charles and Diana, now all the monarchs since old Billy the Conquerer would finally be in the ancestry of their offspring (in this case, Prince William, and obviously Prince Harry unless you believe certain rumours).

I think it had something to do with some of the rather turbulant successions prior to the ascension of the Tudors, and modern reinterpretations of whether some claimants were being entirely honest [or correct] about their rights to take on the role (and, indeed, parantage), but I think the phrase "it's all history" applies here... It was good enough for the people of the time, and we've all passed a lot of water since then... ;)

I am ill-educated on this point, but I distinctly remember it being said (by people who should know) that with the marriage (temporary though it was) between Charles and Diana, now all the monarchs since old Billy the Conquerer would finally be in the ancestry of their offspring (in this case, Prince William, and obviously Prince Harry unless you believe certain rumours).


All English (and, since the accession of James I & VI, British) monarchs since 1066 have been descended from William I, but not all English/British monarchs have been descended from all of their predecessors.

For example, Mary I, Edward VI and Elizabeth II all failed to have children, none of that list (nor their father Henry VIII, for that matter) have subsequently had any descendents on the throne. Ditto Richard I, Stephen, Charles II, James II & VIII [unless you're a devout Jacobite who doesn't recognise the Hanoverian succession], William III, Mary II, Anne and others I can't be bothered listing.

So I'm not sure what those commentators at the wedding were getting at, but if they meant what you seem to be implying they meant, they were dead wrong. Even in more recent times, no (legitimate) direct descendents of George IV, William IV or Edward VIII have held, or can ever hold, the throne.

But note that the British monarchs _are_ also descended from both the houses of Wessex and McAlpine/Canmore through the marriage of Malcolm Canmore to Margaret of England (and, I think, the marriage of an early Norman king to an Anglo-Saxon royal, though I forget which).

Therefore while the institution of the 'United Kingdom' is, de jure, a 19th-century creation, the consitutuent components of that Kingdom are centuries older.

Surely as the Act of Union which went into operation in 1801 was written in 1800, the institution is, de jure, an 18th-century creation?

Clearly there was a 'Kingdom of England' before William I and the Battle of Hastings. Borders were of course subject to change, but the House of Wessex and the family of Cnut already ruled what is recognisably England, with Alfred the Great the first to style himself 'King of England' in the late 9th century.

...but for an England which will map satisfactorily onto modern England, one has to wait until Aethelstan in 924, IIRC. If nothing else, Aethelstan is a firmer arguin piont, as he doesn't need to be refered to as 'self-styled' King of England.