countries that shouldnt be in the world showcase

[Pumbas Nakasak]

Now, one more time...
Scotland has a national identity but it doesn't qualify as a country. :
http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/scotlandnot.htm
:lookaroun :animwink:

Just read that again, I like his use of the phrase somewhat? That’s like saying the President was somewhat at fault for events in New Orleans? I know what I mean but do you.

Scottish Education is different from that in England FACT! But I suppose his argument is that funding comes from centralised taxation, oh but wait some funding comes from local taxes, equivalent of state taxes. Now where does that lead us…………..

But now Im descending to your level arguing semantics. Its good to see that the geographic genius does recognise a separate identity and that you have not contradicted the importance of Scots in the development of the modern world. Especially in shaping the country where the pavilion should be built.

 

[PintoColvig]

Well based on that tosh I guess soon all the existing old world countries in Europe will not be states/countries either given the role of the EU in almost all of these areas under the Social charter.

Well, the EU is getting closer and closer to becoming one country, IMO.

But hey what do the former colonies know about world affairs.:drevil:

:zipit:

Just read that again, I like his use of the phrase somewhat? That’s like saying the President was somewhat at fault for events in New Orleans? I know what I mean but do you.

Scottish Education is different from that in England FACT!

Apparently, Scottish education doesn't include proper use of punctuation marks, either. But that is for another thread. :lol:

Perhaps you should read that article again. His thesis is that a country need only fail on one of the eight criteria to not meet the definition of independent country status. According to his argument and in addition to the four "somewhats" you've noted, Scotland fails on two criteria: It is not sovereign and it doesn't have international recognition. Funny but why would you argue about the "somewhats" and not even address those two points? But hey, what does a former country know about world affairs? :drevil:

But now Im descending to your level arguing semantics. Its good to see that the geographic genius does recognise a separate identity and that you have not contradicted the importance of Scots in the development of the modern world. Especially in shaping the country where the pavilion should be built.

It seems that the problem is not one of semantics on my part but one of nation envy on your part. May I recommend a revolution? It certainly worked well for us former colonies.

BTW, I certainly have no problem recognizing the identity and contributions of Scotland. (I've got Scottish ancestry, afterall! Sorry to inform you that I'm your kin!) That doesn't mean we kinsmen should advocate elevating Scotland to country status for the sake of getting a pavillion in Epcot when it clearly is not a country. BUT, we certainly should push for greater recognition for Scotland in the UK Pavillion.

--End of transmission--