<end quote>

I really cannot let this pass; you're over simplifying things in one of my pet subjects! :)

1) There is a very significant difference between 'the English being in charge' and 'it's ... still the same country. For example, I think no one would argue that Iraq was part of the United States during the time that the US was directly in control of the country, right?

2) Wales is more complex, but Scotland was unequivocably not an English province. Scotland was a self-governing, independent country (if often coerced into yielding to England on many issues) with its own monarch until the Scottish King James VI inherited the English throne from Queen Elizabeth I. Even then England and Scotland mantained separate parliaments until the Acts of Union about 100 years later (the very early 1700s, I think). The Acts of Union was not an assimilation of Scotland into England, but the creation of a new entity "Great Britain".

3) Despite the power of the British Empire, it was a network of sovereign states, not of provinces - although, again, Britain had a great deal of power/influence in each country under its dominion... they were, however, still distinct countries. Consider, again, the power wielded by the United States, the influence it has over many other sovereign nations, but one cannot with truth say they are all part of the United States....

4) Wales, as I said, is more complex, and was certainly *treated* as a province after Edward I. Gwynedd (spelling?) was conquered in the late 13th century, but Wales was not officially annexed by England until Henry VII's reign. This annexation gave Welsh citizens (theoretical) equality under English law and (hurrah!) elminated the 'Marcher Lords' (the roles, not the individuals); it also, oddly enough, defined the borders of Wales...

I will try to clean up this post later today - we're taking our menagerie of little people to the zoo now!

Eliana

May I respectfully suggest that you go stand amongst Scottish supporters at a rugby or football match and start chanting loudly for England? The following few days in hospital "lively discussions" might realign your attitude on this subject.

And just in case you're tempted to reply "Who cares what the Scots themselves think", I'll paraphrase your own words in this node and say "This issue isn't about what you personally consider the definition of England, and it is very egotistical and narrow-minded of you to try to make it about that.".

Update: marto rightly admonished me for portraying Scottish football fans as hooligans, which from personal experience I also know is overwhelmingly not true, I was attempting to be facetious here. While I wouldn't want to guarantee the complete physical safety of an England supporter in a Scottish fan-block (rivalry between the two fan-groups is rather fierce and does lead to violence occasionally, and there are twats in every sport supporter group) he would more likely than not get off with a good-natured ribbing.marto++

I know many Scotland (football) fans, I am 100% sure that none of them would attack someone for being in the Scotland 'end' and cheering for England. Scotland fans, aka the Tartan Army, seem to know that the team do not have a chance of winning any competition. It seems to me the fanatical devotion the supports have is for the fun of the national team taking part, and for the fans travelling to far off lands, drinking, singing silly songs and to return home. I am pretty sure that Scotland fans have earned a good reputation for their behaviour both in the UK and around the world. This is not to say that some 'playful banter' would be out of the equation between an England supporter and a Scotland supporter at a match.

Most major cities in Scotland have two (or more) football teams. Each seems to have an 'old rival'. Matches played between these teams have been known to resort in trouble between fans during and/or after the match. I believe this is also the case in England, though I have never been to an English football match.

There are people who use this as an excuse for violence (organised fights with other such minded people who claim to support a rival team). IMHO these people are not sports fans, but violence fans. If we had no sports such as Football/rugby would they start fights over which chess grandmaster would win a game? :P

Update: Post tirwhan update :D

To further confuse issues there is obviously cross over, since a large percentage of Scotland supporters will support a league team also. I am sure that there will be a number of these fans who support a league team and their national team who shout abuse (or worse) at fans who support a rival local team. I can't understand this mentality, or the mentality of someone who follows a team (league or otherwise) so I can not offer any more insight into that. Perhaps they are of the opinion that since the national team have a better chance of having a hit record than they do of wining anything then it is not worth bothering about. On the other hand, for some of these teams religion has a place in their origins. As we know people don't really need an excuse to start fighting with each other :D

<joke>If anyone says that Topalov is better than Kramnik there will be trouble</joke>

If I have used the wrong sporting terms in this post I apologise.

Martin

I avoid sporting events. I consider all sports fanatics, of any nationality, to be dangerously insane. I'd be more willing to go to a Scottish university and discuss the question with the history professors.