Britain out of Ireland!

Castiel said:
So according to your logic as Ireland is in the geographically region known as the British Isles is it ok to refer to Dublin as a British City? and if not, then why is Belfast a British City....:p
Click to expand...

We can also call teams like Linfield and Crusaders Irish teams because they play in a league run by the Irish FA (IFA), even though you'd be shot saying that to the fans.... :p
 
spudbynight said:
Can I be anti-Scottish then in a "political" sense?*





*I'm not anti-Scottish, just making a point.
Click to expand...

See what castiel said. (cheers castiel)

At least he can understand the topic.

spudbynight said:
Maybe he should use a term that is more accurate then? Maybe something along the lines of, I don't know, anti-union?
Click to expand...

The Union is known casually as Britain, which was more than evident with me repeatedly mentioning it as the political angle.

The term is accurate, it isn't "Union history" it is "British History"

What is it with people in this thread?

spudbynight said:
If anti-Scottish implies that you are anti-Scotland as in the geographical region and thus it's people directly then logically anti-British implies that you are anti-Britain as in the geographical region and thus it's people directly?
Click to expand...

Flawed logic and straw man.

If I was anti-British "people" I'd have to be anti myself, which is a bit odd politically don't you think?

Understand?
 
Last edited:
pingwing said:
We can also call teams like Linfield and Crusaders Irish teams because they play in a league run by the Irish FA (IFA), even though you'd be shot saying that to the fans.... :p
Click to expand...

They are a Northern Irish team as the IFA is the governing body for Northern Ireland as opposed to the FAI which is the governing body of the Republic of Ireland.:p
 
Castiel said:
You don't have to bring it up, I did to illustrate the correct terminology when referring to a Scottish Football club, that people may use common usage as an description doesn't make it any more correct. As you stated Biohazard should have been more accurate in his description, but then that would also hold true for the way in which the OP described Celtic, would it not?

Semantics really does pass you by a little doesn't it. (as does being in the midst of a monumental windup it seems...:D)

So according to your logic as Ireland is in the geographically region known as the British Isles is it ok to refer to Dublin as a British City? and if not, then why is Belfast a British City....:p
Click to expand...

First of all as you are sticking to your guns I assume you will be contacting the BBC, the SFA and FIFA to point out that they are incorrect?

Belfast isn't a British city last time I looked. And the British Isles is a term that is open to much debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles_naming_dispute

Nice of you to admit as well that you have been trolling.
 
Last edited:
Biohazard said:
See what castiel said. (cheers castiel)

At least he can understand the topic.



The Union is known casually as Britain, which was more than evident with me repeatedly mentioning it as the political angle.

The term is accurate, it isn't "Union history" it is "British History"

What is it with people in this thread?



Flawed logic and straw man.

If I was anti-British "people" I'd have to be anti myself, which is a bit odd politically don't you think?

Understand?
Click to expand...

I think you simply need to use less insulting language and be a little bit more aware of the feelings of others.

I am British so naturally I am going to take exception to people being anti-British. I am also fully in favour of full independence for Scotland.
 
spudbynight said:
Belfast isn't a British city last time I looked. And the British Isles is a term that is open to much debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles_naming_dispute

Nice of you to admit as well that you have been trolling.
Click to expand...

So Belfast is not part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the UK or Britain?

Geographically the British Isles are an archipelago of Islands off the northern coast of Europe proper....this is not really open to debate. The political connotations and SEMANTICS of usage however are.

note the word SEMANTICS.....:p

I am not trolling, I am effectively leading the thread topic away from another example of stereotyping and bigotry, so rather than trolling I am in fact performing a public service by negating another example of intolerance....;)
 
Last edited:
spudbynight said:
I think you simply need to use less insulting language and be a little bit more aware of the feelings of others.

I am British so naturally I am going to take exception to people being anti-British. I am also fully in favour of full independence for Scotland.
Click to expand...

There was nothing insulting about that at all, your deliberate misunderstanding of the subjects are boring, childish and unwelcome.

You shouldn't take exception to people being Anti-British.

I don't take exception to people who are pro-unionist.

I can't see the correlation myself.
 
spudbynight said:
First of all as you are sticking to your guns I assume you will be contacting the BBC, the SFA and FIFA to point out that they are incorrect?
Click to expand...

Why would I, they would simply say they were using Celtic's own extension of their influence and it is merely an issue of semantic interpretation of common usage and implication of proprietorship rather than a totally accurate description of the official nationality of Celtic Football club.

Something that you cannot seem to comprehend, however they are referred depends entirely on the perception and usage of the terminology.

You yourself posted the wikipage relating to the usage of the term British Isles and the way it can imply proprietorship in certain interpretations, especially politically, so all you are doing is illustrating your own misunderstanding of what people are actually saying here.
 
Last edited:
Biohazard said:
There was nothing insulting about that at all, your deliberate misunderstanding of the subjects are boring, childish and unwelcome.

You shouldn't take exception to people being Anti-British.

I don't take exception to people who are pro-unionist.

I can't see the correlation myself.
Click to expand...

But you would take exception if they were Anti-Scottish no doubt.
 
Biohazard said:
There was nothing insulting about that at all, your deliberate misunderstanding of the subjects are boring, childish and unwelcome.

You shouldn't take exception to people being Anti-British.

I don't take exception to people who are pro-unionist.

I can't see the correlation myself.
Click to expand...

It is insulting, I am disappointed that you can't see that.

Having lived in Ireland for several years and been on the end of anti-British sentiment I am entitled to have that view. Anyone who called me a "British *******" or told me to "**** off back to Britain" was just voicing their disagreement with the political union of the UK?

Thanks for clearing that up.
 
Castiel said:
Why would I, they would simply say they were using Celtic's own extension of their influence and it is merely an issue of semantic interpretation of common usage and implication of proprietorship rather than a totally accurate description of the official nationality of Celtic Football club.

Something that you cannot seem to comprehend, however they are referred depends entirely on the perception and usage of the terminology.

You yourself posted the wikipage relating to the usage of the term British Isles and the way it can imply proprietorship in certain interpretations, especially politically, so all you are doing is illustrating your own misunderstanding of what people are actually saying here.
Click to expand...

Look, you have a closed mind on this. Whatever you think isn't going to change Celtic being a British club.
 
spudbynight said:
Look, you have a closed mind on this. Whatever you think isn't going to change Celtic being a British club.
Click to expand...

I don't have a closed mind at all, I am merely pointing out the correct terminology rather than common usage, which is invariably incorrect on a purely technical level regardless of the actual example.

You are the one who refused to accept that from an official perspective Celtic is a Scottish rather than a British football club.

Simply you paraphasing "Lol I am right, you are wrong" is not going to change that.
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
There is no point to accept, you are wrong to call Celtic a British Club, they are a Scottish Club.....if you accepted that fact then we wouldn't have to keep reminding you that was just the least of the stereotypical claptrap that you psoted in your OP about the Northern Irish.



The Anglo-Scottish Cup was a separate league created by the Scottish and English Football League Associations, it had no Association of it's own, which is why, when the Scottish League pulled out, it was discontinued.

It was not and never was intended as a British League Association and it was never officially recognised or instituted as such by the Association Football governing bodies.

So it is wrong to claim it as an example of an Affiliated British Football Association.




Actually they couldn't especially since 1993 when the rules regarding the Home Nations and player eligibility were codified by each Countries FA.

The FIFA rules are generally thus:



FIFA leave the eligibility of any given player to the countries FA, most countries this is a straight forward thing, as the nationality or more accurately the citizenship of a player and the overall FA are one and the same, however obviously with the Home Nations this is complicated by the fact that each home nations each have a seperate FA and thus they came to an official and legal agreement (not gentleman's handshake) that is as follows:



So basically all FIFA are considering is the eligibility of a Player to register/play for a specific Association, such as the Scottish, English or French FA etc....it leaves the question of who is eligible via nationality to the Football Associations themselves.

So, as the respective Home Nation Associations are all independent and they have a codified system of rules regarding eligibility it is indeed correct to refer to the teams which are affiliated to the respective Associations by their respective Home Nation, for example Celtic are a Scottish Club, rather than a British one.....:p


Isn't arguing about Football Associations and eligibility far more fun than expressing hatred for the Irish, or British depending on which side of the divide you sit on....;)
Click to expand...

I never claimed it was a football association, just that there was a British cup and as such, calling Scottish and English clubs British is correct.

I know what the anglo scottish cup is Castiel, I watched the 1980 final live, you dont have to cut and paste from the internet what it is.

And you are wrong, legally, any British player could play for any of the countries, the fact remains that they dont as it could and probably would lead to the breakdown of the four countries as individual countries with the fear that we would all be forced into having a single British team.
 
Castiel said:
I don't have a closed mind at all, I am merely pointing out the correct terminology rather than common usage, which is invariably incorrect on a purely technical level regardless of the actual example.

You are the one who refused to accept that from an official perspective Celtic is a Scottish rather than a British football club.

Simply you paraphasing "Lol I am right, you are wrong" is not going to change that.
Click to expand...

I think you have a closed mind on this and you have admitted to trolling.

As for the official perspective I will bear that in mind whenever I am contacting FIFA on behalf of Celtic.

For all other situations I will use Scottish or British as is most appropriate for the conversation in hand.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom