RootsAir From Costa Rica, joined Feb 2005, 4179 posts, RR: 45 Posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1481 times:
This is a question I have very very often wondered about.
Why are the 4 British countries considered as one in some cases and separate in other ?
For example, when we look at rugby or football games, we see that there is no UK team . Instead you see a Scottish, an English, A Welsh ,etc team.Only the olympics is the major sports event where you see a UK team .
However they all share same passport, same ID and all have the GB as the country's code
In addition doesn't Scotland have its own parliament ?
And last but not least, I've never heard anyone say they are from the UK or proud to be from the UK. They all say I'm Scottish, Welsh, N.Irish or English. The few people that say they are from the UK are people from England since many take it for granted that to foreigners you are directly English if you say you are from the UK. (trust me I know a few)
Plus there has been many threads on people asking why the flags from Scotland, N.Ireland or Wales weren't put up on the website
I would like to ask the following questions
1) To you British folks out there, what is your opinion on the U.K existing as such . Do you think its good it remains the U.K or you'd rather have it split up
2) I would like to know why Scotland, England , Wales, and N.Ireland are considered separate entities in sports events but not politically!
Regards
B.M
A man without the knowledge of his past history,culture and origins is like a tree without roots
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20845 posts, RR: 55 Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1473 times:
Britain de facto has a federal structure, just still in an embryonic form (England has no regional structures, while the other regions do). It´s not really fundamentatlly different from the structure in many other countries such as the USA or Germany. The separate regional representation in some international sports events is just a historical oddity. In practice, Scotland is not structurally different from Bavaria regarding its political status (and more than a few cultural peculiarities, for some strange reason).
I don´t think the regions could survive on their own (except maybe for England), so I doubt there´s really an alternative to complete a federal reform and get it over with.
Especially if it cuts down the whining in the forums...
VS74741R From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 272 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1472 times:
Quoting RootsAir (Thread starter): And last but not least, I've never heard anyone say they are from the UK or proud to be from the UK. They all say I'm Scottish, Welsh, N.Irish or English. The few people that say they are from the UK are people from England since many take it for granted that to foreigners you are directly English if you say you are from the UK. (trust me I know a few)
I don't know about anyone else but I always say Im British or I come from Britain. There are a lot of people who wouldn't know where England, Wales, Scotland or Ireland are but they know where the uk is. lol It's just our identity to the world I surpose.
Quoting RootsAir (Thread starter): 1) To you British folks out there, what is your opinion on the U.K existing as such . Do you think its good it remains the U.K or you'd rather have it split up
I'd rather it remain the UK, there's no point splitting us up, we're all friends here
Quoting RootsAir (Thread starter): 2) I would like to know why Scotland, England , Wales, and N.Ireland are considered separate entities in sports events but not politically!
Duke From Canada, joined Sep 1999, 1135 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1429 times:
Here's why it's all one state: England was "given" Ireland by the Pope in the Middle Ages, and then conquered it. Ireland eventually got the style of "Kingdom", but was treated more like an English colony (I'm simplifying perhaps). The issue of home rule for Ireland eventually came up. When Ireland separated in the 20th century, Northern Ireland stayed part of the Union (more on this below). Wales was conquered by England in the Middle Ages, and I think was seen as an integral part of that country for many years (but nowadays, it would be politically incorrect to say such a thing). As for Scotland, it was an independent kingdom (albeit at war with England on several occasions, including some overlordship) until 1707. At that year, the parliaments of England and Scotland were united, and these states became one - Great Britain. However, Scotland retained much of its own legal system. A few years ago, it got its own Parliament, which is similar to a provincial/state/teritorial legislature in North America or Germany. I think Wales has something like this developing or in place, but don't know if it's the same.
Now, as to the question of why they're all together, part of the reason is, very simply put, that there is not enough of an independence movement in the remaining countries. People seem generally content to express their nationality and to do some things differently on a regional level. Moreover, in Northern Ireland, people tend to be loyal to the British Crown. Their ancestors came over from Scotland and England to colonize that area (the Scotch-Irish or Ulster Scots in North America are descendants of these).
I happen to be something of a Scottish nationalist (although I am a Serbian Canadian who has moved to Prague). I have gotten the feeling that making Scotland an independent country once again would solve some of the bickering and politicking. However, if this were done, I would hope that relations between Scotland and England-Wales-Northern Ireland would remain friendly, that the border would stay unguarded, and that maybe some institutions (like British Airways and British Rail) would not be broken up but just stay together. Furthermore, I would suggest that the two new countries establish a reciprocal voting right (this now exists between Britain and the Republic of Ireland) by which a citizen of one country living in the other can vote there. And maybe the entire British Isles could make a military alliance (but not a common military).
Nighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 4985 posts, RR: 39 Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1399 times:
Duke: British Rail dissapeared years ago. Now services are operated by franchise operators, Virgin, GNER etc. The railway system was until recently operated by network rail, but im not sure if they are still trading (i think they collpsed a year or 2 ago?) I believe scottish railways are maintained by a division of whoever operates the lines nowadays...
As for British Airways, there is a reason they are called "London Airways" you know, they only operate about 1 european route from scotland, the rest are all doemstic links, many of which other airlines compete on. The majority of island services are done by Loganair, a BA franchise. So to lose BA would be no major loss!!
Personally I believe scotland would be much better off independent. The UK government always favours the south east, and encourages companies to set up there rather than pushing scoland. Since devolution began, the scottish economy has boomed considerably, and quite a few high profile companies have now established offices in Edinburgh. If independence was to be granted I believe this would continue.
Also as an independent nation we would be given control over the north sea oil reserves, this will generate further income for scotlnd and help drive the economy.
Right now pretty much most areas are controlled from Scotland, why not take the next step and grant us independence?
The scottish people are very patriotic, and there are many who share my views that scotland should be independent.
Banco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 55 Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1368 times:
Quoting Klaus (Reply 1): Britain de facto has a federal structure, just still in an embryonic form (England has no regional structures, while the other regions do). It´s not really fundamentatlly different from the structure in many other countries such as the USA or Germany
*Sigh*. Klaus, you keep repeating this and it isn't any more true than when you first did. The UK does NOT have a de facto federal structure, it has a unitary one. In a federal system, the primary power is held in the regions, with reserve powers, and the central government has its power limited. In a unitary system, power is central, but may be devolved to the regions. That doesn't mean that the power cannot be removed from the regions and returned to the centre, something which cannot happen under a federal system.
If the UK Parliament were to abolish the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly; if it were to order everyone to stand on their heads, it can do so. The power is central, the devolved authority on the sufferance and say so of Parliament.
This isn't a matter of opinion or perspective, but a matter of fact.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20845 posts, RR: 55 Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1361 times:
Banco: The UK does NOT have a de facto federal structure, it has a unitary one. In a federal system, the primary power is held in the regions, with reserve powers, and the central government has its power limited. In a unitary system, power is central, but may be devolved to the regions. That doesn't mean that the power cannot be removed from the regions and returned to the centre, something which cannot happen under a federal system.
Nonsense. The characteristic of a federal system is a distribution of powers between central and regional institutions, regardless of how that distribution might be modifiable.
The power distribution in Germany, for instance, is in the process of being changed (probably in a few decades at the rate it´s going), which doesn´t change the fact that we´ve got a federal system.
Neither does the way the british power distribution might be changed change the fact that de facto it´s a federal system as well, just an incomplete and relatively awkward one.
FDXMECH From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 38 Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1354 times:
>>>This isn't a matter of opinion or perspective, but a matter of fact.<<<
Banco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 55 Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1345 times:
Quoting Klaus (Reply 8): Nonsense. The characteristic of a federal system is a distribution of powers between central and regional institutions, regardless of how that distribution might be modifiable.
Klaus, I strongly suggest you go away and do some reading on political systems and definitions.
A unitary system and a federal system can be similar in execution, but not in terms of the source of power. You will find every single damned textbook and authority on the subject in the whole world will say the same thing; the UK is not a federal system, it is a unitary one. In fact, if you can't be arsed to properly read up on it, why don't you type in: " "unitary system" british constitution" into Google and see what you come back with? Oh, yes, page after page after page talking about the UK being a unitary system. What a surprise.
Stop being so bloody arrogant and insisting you are correct and that the rest of the world is wrong.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20845 posts, RR: 55 Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1330 times:
Banco: A unitary system and a federal system can be similar in execution, but not in terms of the source of power.
What about the term "de facto" do you need to have explained?
You yourself have agreed elsewhere that the current arrangement is rather awkward and will need to be corrected, so with England getting its own regional representation and administration (and Northern Ireland being resolved), Britain would in fact have a federal system in practice.
Everything else would primarily just affect the way how changes to the distribution of power would be made, not the actual arrangement.
Banco: Stop being so bloody arrogant and insisting you are correct and that the rest of the world is wrong.
Banco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 55 Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1303 times:
Quoting Klaus (Reply 11): What about the term "de facto" do you need to have explained?
What about the term "opposite" do you need to have explained?
Further, would you like the word "antonym" explained? The antonym of "federal" is "unitary".
Germany is federal, The United States is federal, France is unitary, the UK is unitary.
Your statement is as nonsensical as saying
"The United States is not federal"
"Germany is a constitutional monarchy"
The capital of Canada is Rio de Janeiro"
I'm not debating this matter with you, I'm telling you what the facts are. Arguing black is white doesn't make black white. Once again, Britain is not federal, de facto or otherwise, it is unitary, with devolved assemblies.
Just, for once in your life, admit you are wrong.
Quoting Klaus (Reply 11): You yourself have agreed elsewhere that the current arrangement is rather awkward and will need to be corrected, so with England getting its own regional representation and administration (and Northern Ireland being resolved), Britain would in fact have a federal system in practice.
If you'd been paying attention, rather than trying to get the facts to fit your preconceptions, you'd know that England is not getting regional representation and administration. "England" never was. One or two regions within England might have been, but they are not. It was rejected in referenda.
Even if it had gone ahead, it would not be a federal system "in practice". It just wouldn't. It would be a unitary system with devolved powers.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
Duke From Canada, joined Sep 1999, 1135 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1301 times:
Both you guys raise good points. I think things are not always black and white. The USA and Canada are quite clearly federal. France and the Czech Republic are quite clearly central/unitary. However, I think the situation in Britain is more fluid. Scotland has a similar status to that of a state or province in a federal country; England doesn't. Britain is sort of in between, I'd say.
Banco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 55 Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1296 times:
Quoting Duke (Reply 13): However, I think the situation in Britain is more fluid. Scotland has a similar status to that of a state or province in a federal country
Absolutely! It is indeed similar in some elements. And had Klaus said that, he would have been correct, with the proviso that the central Parliament can remove those powers - in other words a devolved, unitary system.
But you cannot say it is de facto federal, because that fundamentally misunderstands the meaning of federal. There is a reason we have two terms to describe structures, federal and unitary, because they mean different things.
The reason I keep banging on about this, is because it is fundamentally misleading to use the "federal" with any reference to the UK.
Quoting Duke (Reply 13): England doesn't. Britain is sort of in between, I'd say.
No. This is my point. It is not in-between, it is a unitary system with devolved assemblies. In practice there are similarities, but that doesn't alter the basic fact. There are similarities in the real world between empirical and theoretical levels of proof, but they are still different in execution.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20845 posts, RR: 55 Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1266 times:
Banco: Absolutely! It is indeed similar in some elements. And had Klaus said that, he would have been correct,
I did.
Banco: with the proviso that the central Parliament can remove those powers - in other words a devolved, unitary system.
What you don´t seem to understand is that there is a conceptual difference between the actual execution of administration and the formal status behind it.
Your hangup about having to prove the differences precludes your recognition of the structural similarities which are clearly emerging.
As I said, it´s in an embryonic form, but it is (and should be) developing into the same direction.
Banco: Just, for once in your life, admit you are wrong.
I don´t see why I should start now, of all times!
Banco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 55 Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1261 times:
Quoting Klaus (Reply 15): I don´t see why I should start now, of all times!
Enough of this. You are wrong. End of story. Your attempts to try to get out of it are silly. Your ignorance of constitutional realities as it pertains to the United Kingdom has been demonstrated by your continual gainsaying of a fact acknowledged by every single political writer and authority there is.
And your refusal to acknowledge that fact in itself speaks volumes.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20845 posts, RR: 55 Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1253 times:
Banco: Enough of this. You are wrong. End of story.
You are simply looking from a different angle at the same things. If you can´t recognize the different abstraction levels involved, I´m afraid I can´t help you either.
You seem so obsessed with your visceral rejection of the dreaded "F-word" (no, not that one, mods! ) that you lose the necessary capability to differentiate between them. You might want to take a step back and re-read my posts again.
Banco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 55 Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1247 times:
Quoting Klaus (Reply 17): You are simply looking from a different angle at the same things. If you can´t recognize the different abstraction levels involved, I´m afraid I can´t help you either.
It has nothing whatever to do with abstraction. It has everything to do with using inaccurate and plain wrong terms to describe a system. You can't even bring yourself to admit that the UK is a unitary system not a federal one for heaven's sake!
It has nothing to do with not liling a federal system either. I haven't even mentioned a view on the subject, but for what it's worth, a federal structure here would work perfectly well. However, and this is why you are entirely, incontestably wrong to use the term, it would require a total and utter re-write of the constitution removing the primacy of Parliament. We are not "moving towards" a federal system as you so incorrectly put it, because we cannot have one without changing absolutely everything.
Get over it. You can whinge all you like, but it won't change the facts.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20845 posts, RR: 55 Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1231 times:
Banco: It has nothing whatever to do with abstraction.
Just re-read my posts. I am talking about the factual structure, not about the formal powers of how to make changes to the factual structure (which you´re talking about exclusively).
Banco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 55 Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1222 times:
Quoting Klaus (Reply 19): Just re-read my posts. I am talking about the factual structure,
Oh, for heaven's sake.
You just don't get it, do you?
Why don't you go away and do some reading about the UK? Or France. Or in fact, both. France has devolved power to the regions too, but they are not federal either.
When you actually comprehend the difference, come back and discuss it.
And you STILL won't actually admit that Britain is unitary, will you?
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
Banco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 55 Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1204 times:
Kieron, I'd love to think that that post would clear it up, but sadly, I fear not. I've given Klaus every encouragement to look at any and every reference book in the world which will say the same thing, and also every website not written by a 12 year old which will also say the same thing. I deliberately didn't want to provide any links because I wanted him to find it for himself - if he was prepared to look (not that I am ungrateful to you!).
He hasn't done so, and I very much doubt that you providing the definitions for him will make any difference either.
It's been like trying to argue with someone who says that Ireland is a country located off the coast of Australia.
I'll await the next time this subject comes up, when no doubt he will repeat the same thing.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20845 posts, RR: 55 Reply 23, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1182 times:
I have never denied the formal structure of Britain being centralized ("unitary") - my point regarding the initial topic of this post was simply that de facto Britain implements an embryonic and incomplete form of a federal structure.
A centralized structure with "devolution" tacked on as a band-aid to relieve some of the regional pressure is an unstable transitional form towards a federal form which has turned out to be much more stable.
The open acrimony - even hostility - emerging from occupied territories in centralized states (Northern Ireland, the basque region, Corsica etc.) gives clear testament that actual regional rights cannot be replaced by a fictional unity which merely invites the occupied to join their occupiers by discarding their own identity.
Provisionally granting some rights under the constant threat of arbitrary revocation is not a solution - it´s a stop gap measure.
Interestingly (but not surprisingly), many britons project their fears onto the EU under wild and unrealistic assumptions that the EU would act or work like the current british system does now. Small wonder they´re unenthusiastic!
(If anything, the EU is developing into a "weak center" variety of a true federal system with guaranteed regional (in this case national) rights, not a centralized one!)
Banco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 55 Reply 24, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1173 times:
Quoting Klaus (Reply 23): I have never denied the formal structure of Britain being centralized ("unitary") - my point regarding the initial topic of this post was simply that de facto Britain implements an embryonic and incomplete form of a federal structure.
Oh, stunning. You finally admit it, and then go on to repeat the same crap you did before, despite all the evidence that you were, and are, talking utter nonsense. Unbelievable.
Quoting Klaus (Reply 23): The open acrimony - even hostility - emerging from occupied territories in centralized states (Northern Ireland, the basque region, Corsica etc.) gives clear testament that actual regional rights cannot be replaced by a fictional unity which merely invites the occupied to join their occupiers by discarding their own identity.
I've never read such a load of bollocks in all my life. "Emerging" hostility? In Northern Ireland? Because it isn't a federal system? Are you really that stupid?
Then there's is the phrase "occupied". I'm not even going to go there with that one. It's even more stupid than before.
You really haven't got a clue, have you? You've got absolutely no comprehension or understanding of the subject at all.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
25 Klaus: Dealing with the distinctions and the actual points is too much to ask? Pity.
26 Banco: Excuse me? After you ignored my repeated requests to answer a simple question. After you refused to look up information I asked you to? After you ref
27 Klaus: Banco: Excuse me? After you ignored my repeated requests to answer a simple question. I have always said that I wasn´t addressing the formal structur
28 Andreas: I did...some English papers, and, following them out of his own free will, a certain Forum member by the nickname of Banco, did actually believe that
29 Banco: Oh rubbish. You insisted on a specific point that was totally and irrefutably wrong, and refused - and still refuse - to back down. And you also refu
30 JGPH1A: Banco is right. The UK is a unionist structure, in fact as well as in law. Another example would be South Africa. In the early 1900's following the s
31 Gkirk: Banco, stop being so harsh on poor old Klaus. It's not his fault that he's Germa...oh wait, carry on Andreas, stay out of it
32 MD11Engineer: Kirkie, But here is the reason why you will never gert a Scottish flag on A.net. Jan
33 Klaus: I see good manners are on their way out on the foggy isles... as is the capability to address the actual point. Sad to see.
34 Gkirk: You mean, it isnt? Is this you admitting defeat?
35 Klaus: Gkirk: Is this you admitting defeat? If the actual content of my posts is being ignored in favour of madly hopping up and down over a point that wasnÂ
36 Skidmarks: Oh dear. I think I'll stay on the Isle of Man - at least we KNOW what sort of government we have. And also what we are. And that is a Dependancy of th
37 Banco: It's the holding on to a point when it has been shown time and again that he's talking drivel that's the most irritating bit. Then he tries to change
38 Cornish: Maybe we could swap Scotland with the French for some of those nice island territories of theirs
39 Klaus: Banco, you were exclusively clinging to the letter of the word, completely ignoring the context in which I made my remarks. And as you could see for y
40 Banco: Oh, for God's sake. It has been pointed out that the UK's structure is not remotely federal, not even de facto federal. It's just the opposite. Would
41 Klaus: Banco: Oh, for God's sake. It has been pointed out that the UK's structure is not remotely federal, not even de facto federal. It's just the opposite.
42 Banco: Oh, you haven't actually bothered reading those definitions have you? Did you look up what "antonym" means? The anonym of "federal" is "unitary". Got
43 Klaus: Banco: Oh, you haven't actually bothered reading those definitions have you? Did you look up what "antonym" means? The anonym of "federal" is "unitary
44 Banco: Crap. The definitions are there to point up the differences. By concentrating on regional government and calling it "federal" all you are doing is sh
45 MD11Engineer: Could you guys please stop arguing? While according to British constitutional law there is no facility to stop the London parliament from removing pow
46 Banco: I quite agree with your assessment Jan. That isn't the point. Let me try to explain why in German terms. If I said: Germany seems to me to be a de fa
47 MD11Engineer: Banco, With the way the German states are often interfering in decisions made at federal level, sometimes I wish it would be more unitary, on the othe
48 Banco: They wouldn't seriously go that far though, surely? I mean, I know that Germany as a construct is relatively recent, but is there really any part of t
49 Gkirk: Indeed, give up now And seeing as some of you (non Brits) think that Scotland isnt a country, I challenge you to go into the middle of any Scottish t
50 MD11Engineer: I think it is all a problem of how it is written in the constitution. Even the French realised that the extremely centralised "one size fits all" poli
51 WunalaYann: Keep dreaming. Though, once again, I gladly trade the French Antilles for the Channel Islands, if we can also seize the mind-boggling amount of money
52 Klaus: Banco: I quite agree with your assessment Jan. That isn't the point. Let me try to explain why in German terms. If I said: Germany seems to me to be a
53 Banco: Exactly so! It doesn't fit very well at all. That's because Germany is federal, not unitary! Dammit, no it doesn't! It's not even a question of being
54 Banco: That's pretty much so. I'd pick you up on a couple of points. To say that the regions were "administered" from Westminster doesn't take into account
55 Klaus: Banco: Exactly so! It doesn't fit very well at all. That's because Germany is federal, not unitary! If the population widely demanded Berlin to take d
56 Banco: I think this is the key passage: Now we're getting somewhere! Yes, I agree with you. But, and this is the point, subsidiarity can take many of forms,
57 Klaus: Banco: Now we're getting somewhere! I´ve been here all along... Banco: Yes, I agree with you. But, and this is the point, subsidiarity can take many
58 Scotty: Scotty will be heading for Edinburgh with his AK47 and bag of grenades ready to repel boarders in the name of democracy and freedom. The only way the
59 Klaus: Scotty: Scotty will be heading for Edinburgh with his AK47 and bag of grenades ready to repel boarders in the name of democracy and freedom. The only
60 LTBEWR: If independent or federal states were established in the UK, would Scotland bring back their own King/Queen? Or, would they be a republic? I have been
61 Gkirk: LTBEWR, We'd be a Republic. The majority of us do not care for the Royal Family
62 Scotty: Wouldnt disagree with much of that. I think independent Scotland would remain under the Queen for some years but would eventually gravitate towards b
Sponsor Message: 
From Costa Rica, joined Feb 2005, 4179 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20845 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 272 posts, 
From Australia, joined Aug 2004, 8320 posts, 
From Canada, joined Sep 1999, 1135 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 4985 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
