Mods I have already posted this in the News section but will copy here to add to the on going debate.
YF plus the journos
Hmmmmmmmm ... I have questioned whether I should post this as sometimes some see my comments not in the light in which they are meant.
However I think it�s to important not to comment and I before some wish to blast me I am reminded that sometimes to be blunt is better than beating around the bush. Accordingly in the light of the greater good and I am actually on your side here we go.
MBH wants his way, SB wants his way, Frank Lowy wants what is best for Australian Football. Frank Lowy gave his word to help NZ football and he will do all he can to keep his word. Australian Football needs Asia, ... Asia is pays all the bills by bringing in government, business, and investors no Asia none of the aforementioned.
The Nix need things done for them to succeed, the main thing is to have NZ players granted exemptions to play for the Nix.
To give FL any chance of pulling off exemptions you want he needs to be able to show MBH the growth in NZ football between now and 2010 or 2011.
Hmmmmmm... dilemma ... how when NZF seem almost incapable of hitting any runs.. I have mentioned before you can trade votes and places in FIFA tournaments before so I will refer you to my prior thoughts on this .... BUT this is the biggie ... the daddy of the biggie and I have not read anywhere and understanding of what is being offered.
Further that this is a TEST for NZF and to a lesser extent the Nix.
The world cup is estimated to bring between 1.25 and 2 million visitors and somewhere 6.5 and 9 billion Australian dollars to Australia. There will be some overflow to NZ BUT IF you are involved in the WC by having training facilities the overflow will be much greater.
Lets pick say the lower figure of 6.5 billion dollars, assume you do nothing Asia via MBN ensures you get minimum exposure and you get say 5% overflow or 325 million dollars. Now assume you are part of the world cup and have four teams training there, Auckland, Wellie, Christchurch and Whangeria. The Bay of Islands shown all around the world. The overflow jumps to say 20% you now get 1.3 billion dollars and all the repeat business that will come as well as the business connections.
Thus you get an extra billion dollars and for what SFA actually maybe upgrade some training fields, do you honestly believe we don�t have the training facilities in Australia.
So here is the test, what do the Nix and NZF bring to the A-league, ..Potential mainly .. actual results smallish to date. Media in NZ behind netball and above hockey, government and business connections ... very few ... home crowds one goodish year to date .. away crowds and Australian TV ratings the lowest ...
The test for you is to increase everything and prove you are worth the fight if an extra billion dollars plus the flow on affects for years after and the business connections cannot get better media and lift footballs profile in NZ. If you can FL can say to MBH well look at what they have done they are worth it ... do nothing and MBH says FL what are you fighting so hard for these losers for ....
Getting it the training facilities is for NZF to lift football profile in NZ and how the fark could you not .. this is your test to see if you are worth the fight.
Socceroo/ Mariner / Whangarei
Permalink
Permalink
Tony P is going to meet with Ben Buckley ahead of the sydney game to discuss our license and the ACL
Honestly Tony, all I want is for Nix status-quo.
f**k Bin Hamman's ACL. Also, don't believe the Australian ACL hype either.
I mean really. At kickoff watching the Chunnam Dragons V Melbourne Victory earlier this year - I could've brought into the stadium a battalion of the Korean Army's finest, screaming "f**k this sh*t fellas, it's time for a crazy-ass banzai charge!!!!!!!"
Trust me. In, amongst, and around the stadium, we would've gone completely apesh*t for the full 90 minutes - with me providing the required leadership.
Nonetheless. Even after all this, my imaginary formation would've taken out ten, maybe twenty spectators. Max. (There was supposedly 3,000 spectators in attendence that day - bollocks). Thus, it would've have been a fruitless "crazy-ass" effort if you ask me.
True Asians 
the EPL. They don't the ACL. Therefore, if an Asian "powerhouse" can't give a rats - why should I?
the EPL. They don't the ACL. Therefore, if an Asian "powerhouse" can't give a rats - why should I?However, I'd dearly love to win that toilet seat...
Permalink
Permalink
Who gives a sh*t about the ACL at the moment. I'd rather have a youth team and our existance guaranteed for the next 100 years! Though I guess it would help financially. (to make up the money we are losing because of low crowds..)
valeo2009-01-08 04:31:11
valeo2009-01-08 04:31:11
a.haak
Permalink
Permalink
I know Adelaide said that they only broke even making it to the final (although the revamped formula does have a substantially increased prize money). But every club wants to get as far as they can and the ACL is a great goal for the club as a way to attract better players.
The ACL is clearly a growing tournament that is given greater prominence by clubs from some countries than others so you may be right Stevo. But the Asian confederation is investing considerable time and money in attempting to create a competition that is truly seen as the pinnacle of the game in the region and with the Japanese clubs on board it is heading in the right direction.
Normo's coming home
Permalink
Permalink
To give FL any chance of pulling off exemptions you want he needs to be able to show MBH the growth in NZ football between now and 2010 or 2011.
What do you base this theory on? Is it written anywhere or just your own view?
Why would Asia care about the growth of NZ football? and if they did, why would that change their mind on Nix participation in the A League?
Permalink
Permalink
Once the OFC is absorbed into AFC it should not necessarily just be NZ who play Asian teams. In order to keep costs to a reasonable level there should be an Oceania sub group first, but then two or three teams should join the second round of qualifying, to play the likes of Singapore, Thailand etc. It would be prohibitively expensive to have all island nations even playing a home and away (which is what first round Asian qualifying is), but surely something could be arranged where a couple of island nations get an occasional game against an Asian side.
exactly
Permalink
Permalink
To give FL any chance of pulling off exemptions you want he needs to be able to show MBH the growth in NZ football between now and 2010 or 2011.
What do you base this theory on? Is it written anywhere or just your own view?
Why would Asia care about the growth of NZ football? and if they did, why would that change their mind on Nix participation in the A League?
Just my own obversations, but I assume FL wants you guys to be as successful as you can... this includes crowds and the general growth of the game in NZ. Thus getting the NZ excemptions just makes sense as the most pratical way of achieving this.
This thread has indicated how hard it would be to sell a NZ team if only four players could play in the team.
Your point about Asia caring for NZ ... your right in that they don't ... why would they change... comes down IMO as I have posted before to OFC & NZ doing some trade offs with the AFC ... and as I ahve recently posted lifting the profile of football in NZ.
Just on another point raised recently in this thread ...The AFC are hungery to make the ACL one of the worlds best football touranments of its kind.. be under no doubt how the people involved in this want this to work and are pushing to every country very hard. In Australia as I have said before Asia and the potential of the ACL for sponsorsa and investors is paying most of the bills.
Midfielder2009-01-08 13:47:32Socceroo/ Mariner / Whangarei
Permalink
Permalink
I know Adelaide said that they only broke even making it to the final (although the revamped formula does have a substantially increased prize money).� But every club wants to get as far as they can and the ACL is a great goal for the club as a way to attract better players.�
But they got a few million from CWC so I suppose they made money in the end.�
The ACL is clearly a growing tournament that is given greater prominence by clubs from some countries than others so you may be right Stevo.� But the Asian confederation is investing considerable time and money in attempting to create a competition that is truly seen as the pinnacle of the game in the region and with the Japanese clubs on board it is heading in the right direction.
Permalink
Permalink
http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/upload_media/images/gif/mbh300_1233178472.gif
A nice picture of MBH
Plus Qatar is also bidding fot the WC maybe now MBH can use the bids influence across Australia, Japan & China to get what he wants a clever guy.
Qatar has announced its intention to bid to host the FIFA World Cup in 2018 and, should that fail, the 2022 edition of football's global showpiece event.
Qatar is the third Asian Football Confederation member to flag its interest in the competition after Australia and Japan.
"I can confirm that the Qatar football federation has today sent a letter to FIFA in which it officially declared its candidacy for the 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cups,� Qatar Football Federation general secretary Saud Al Mohannadi said in Doha.
�We have the stadiums and we have experience hosting top sports events. We don't want to rush into anything, we need to find out what the full requirements are, but we are interested.�
FIFA started the reception of bids for the right to host the 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cups earlier this month. All the interested national federations will have to make their bids before February 2, 2009.
FIFA, football's world governing body, will name the hosts of the 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cups in December 2010.
Qatar successfully hosted the 2006 Asian Games and will host the 2011 AFC Asian Cup.
Socceroo/ Mariner / Whangarei
Permalink
Permalink
I don't trust Mr MBH at all. The guy says unite all behind one Asia bid...the Oz govt stumps up the cash for the OZ bid and now we have Japan and maybe China, Indonesia and now Quatar all putting their hands up. it will just split the vote.
Japan has no show after holding it with Korea. Quatar is too small(pop of only 1.5 million) indonesia doen't have the infrastructure. But if China comes in then its curtains for Oz.
Anyway despite what everyone is saying on the surface the 2018 Cup is going to Europe. Australia's best chance is falling back to the 2022 Cup.
It will be an interesting race for the 2018. To me the dark horse is Russia in . Britain was an early runner but there is too much bad history against England. Many on the Continent have memories of English football violence and are resentful of the EPL's domination of the champions league. Spain/portugal would be good hosts but Spain had it in 1982.
Permalink
Permalink
28 years is long enough IMO, would much rather make a trip to Spain and Portugal than China, Oz, UK or Russia
You know we belong together...
Permalink
Permalink
I don't trust Mr MBH at all. The guy says unite all behind one Asia bid...the Oz govt stumps up the cash for the OZ bid and now we have Japan and maybe China, Indonesia and now Quatar all putting their hands up. it will just split the vote.
Japan has no show after holding it with Korea. Quatar is too small(pop of only 1.5 million) indonesia doen't have the infrastructure. But if China comes in then its curtains for Oz.
Anyway despite what everyone is saying on the surface the 2018 Cup is going to Europe. Australia's best chance is falling back to the 2022 Cup.
It will be an interesting race for the 2018. To me the dark horse is Russia in . Britain was an early runner but there is too much bad history against England. Many on the Continent have memories of English football violence and are resentful of the EPL's domination of the champions league. Spain/portugal would be good hosts but Spain had it in 1982.
A couple of things here. Britain cannot have been an early runner. There is no such thing as Britain in footballing terms. To use the terms Britain and England as interchangeable will do nothing but get the Welsh and Scots queueing up to have a "word" with you. (All you need to do now is suggest that when you say Australia you mean NZ as well to get an antipodean parallel.) There is no British co-hosting bid and English clubs dominating the EPL has nothing to do with prejudicing the chances of a "celtic bid' being transferred from the Euros to the WC - not that I think they're even considering doing so.
1996 will have shown the continent England has come a long way since the dark days of the 1970s & 80s. It is only in non-football circles that such impressions as the one you allude to remain seen as fact. If they are really concerned about relevant issues in that department, then Italy can forget about trying to bid. Remember they publicity about the UEFA meeting on hooliganism a few years ago, where the head of each FA was present. The Italian FA rep could not complete his opening address properly - he started off by saying something along the lines of "here in Italy we have no problems with hooligansim" and the entire forum burst into spontaneous laughter!
With Asia, I imagine they will internally do what has often been the practice in the past with other confederation bidding (e.g. Africa 2010, South America 2014) and whittle themselves down to one that goes forward. Didn't something similar happen in 2002, which is why we ended up with co-hosting? Otherwise they will, as you say, split the vote.
I wouldn't put Russia down as a dark horse. I reckon they've got a good chance in their own right.
I wouldn't rule out Spain because of 1982. However, FIFA have given mixed signal over co-hosting since 2002. Back then, they said they wouldn't do it again but since have suggested that certain countries would make good pairs. I think they found Japan and S.Korea difficult partners (the two countries do not get on at all) and the first statement post-2002 was probably a knee jerk reaction from all the problems that were encountered (though I thought they did a good job of keeping them out of the public eye).
Personally, I don't like co-hosting much as they always restructure the draw to keep co-hosts apart until the final. This means grouped teams can re-meet in the SF stage - as Brazil v Turkey in 02. I understand that for many countries co-hosting is the only way to go, so it has to be accepted. However, countries capable of hosting alone shouldn't get to co-host IMO - it's merely a way of reducing rival bids.
On co-hosting, have you seen that the so-called Benelux bid would not allow Luxembourg to host any matches or qualify automatically. Surely, then, that's a Bene bid? What's in it for the Lux?
Permalink
Permalink
After the China 2008 Olympics fiasco, i can't see the hosting rights going to them.
Permalink
Permalink
But it generated money and really this is what FIFA want.
Permalink
Permalink
We are still in danger with this guy at the top, he wants to sink us
Quote from the Sydney Morning herald today
"""
Quote from the Sydney Morning herald today
"""
Meanwhile, as rich Asian clubs send A-League clubs reeling by poaching local talent, Bin Hammam said he would like to see two-way traffic, with more players from Asian countries playing in Australia.
"We have adopted a new rule - three plus one - which stipulates that each team competing in the 2009 Asian Champions League can field a maximum of four foreign players in each match, with at least one player being from an AFC member association," he said.
"In addition, the AFC is encouraging countries to adopt the three-plus-one rule in their own leagues to enable Asian players to widen their opportunities within the continent and enhance Asian football as a whole. It isn't just Asian players. We also want to see Australian players in different Asian leagues."
But Bin Hammam had bad news for New Zealand A-League side Wellington Phoenix, refusing to give ground on the AFC's hardline stance that the club must "become Australian" or be shut out when its league licence expires in 2011.
After 2011 the club must either "disappear" or re-register as an Australian club under the law of Australia. "That would mean that all New Zealand players would be treated as foreigners so [Australian clubs] would only be able to have three New Zealanders playing," he said.""""
Maybe it is time for our Kiwis to take up Aus citizenship
Permalink
Permalink
This guy is w**ker. Someone needs to smack him one.
I thought FIFA shut this up. He can't go and defy Fifa now?
I thought FIFA shut this up. He can't go and defy Fifa now?
Permalink
Permalink
Why dont we make NZers not foreigners for all teams?
Permalink
Permalink
So Brockie is classified as an import for the Fury?
Permalink
Permalink
Unless he has Aussie citizenship (like Smeltz I think) yes he is.
Permalink
Permalink
This guy is w**ker. Someone needs to smack him one.
I thought FIFA shut this up. He can't go and defy Fifa now?
I thought FIFA shut this up. He can't go and defy Fifa now?
He might be FIFA president soon..
a.haak
Permalink
Permalink
[[/QUOTE]
A couple of things here. Britain cannot have been an early runner. There is no such thing as Britain in footballing terms. To use the terms Britain and England as interchangeable will do nothing but get the Welsh and Scots queueing up to have a "word" with you. (All you need to do now is suggest that when you say Australia you mean NZ as well to get an antipodean parallel.) There is no British co-hosting bid and English clubs dominating the EPL has nothing to do with prejudicing the chances of a "celtic bid' being transferred from the Euros to the WC - not that I think they're even considering doing s
[/QUOTE]
Sorry I meant England......no offence to all those taffies and scotsmen. I don't want to stir up a hornets nest here but how does Nth Ireland for example end up a "country" in football terms when there is no such country as Nth Ireland? Is it based on some antiquated historical anomaly?
NZ and Australia are seperate countries so there is no parellel. Scotland is not a country its a province of Great Britian. There is no Scottish or Welsh or Nth Ireland or English passports, only UK passports. How can you award the world cup to England...a province of Great Britian?
Doesn't make a lot of sense to me!
Permalink
Permalink
[[/QUOTE]
A couple of things here. Britain cannot have been an early runner. There is no such thing as Britain in footballing terms. To use the terms Britain and England as interchangeable will do nothing but get the Welsh and Scots queueing up to have a "word" with you. (All you need to do now is suggest that when you say Australia you mean NZ as well to get an antipodean parallel.) There is no British co-hosting bid and English clubs dominating the EPL has nothing to do with prejudicing the chances of a "celtic bid' being transferred from the Euros to the WC - not that I think they're even considering doing s
[/QUOTE]
Sorry I meant England......no offence to all those taffies and scotsmen. I don't want to stir up a hornets nest here but how does Nth Ireland for example end up a "country" in football terms when there is no such country as Nth Ireland? Is it based on some antiquated historical anomaly?
NZ and Australia are seperate countries so there is no parellel. Scotland is not a country its a province of Great Britian. There is no Scottish or Welsh or Nth Ireland or English passports, only UK passports. How can you award the world cup to England...a province of Great Britian?
Doesn't make a lot of sense to me!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland - read the first line.
Additionally passports are titled - The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northen Ireland.
It's kind of like how France and Spain are countries and there is no football team called Europe?
Funnily enough, our head of state is the same as NZ's so why aren't you guys part of a British football team as well??
Scotland and Northern Ireland both have separate parliaments.
Scotland is no 'province'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe_B5CzbTJo - Caceres winning penalty v Perth - footage from the Fever Zone
Permalink
Permalink
You should also read this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_kingdom
The United Kingdom is a unitary state consisting of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe_B5CzbTJo - Caceres winning penalty v Perth - footage from the Fever Zone
Permalink
Permalink
Why dont we make NZers not foreigners for all teams?
I would guess the following:
- Eligibility for Asian Champions League.
- NZ is in a different federation to Australia.
Permalink
Permalink
no offence to all those taffies and scotsmen....
Scotland is not a country its a province of Great Britian.
No offence? Try repeating the view that Scotland is a mere province in any pub in Glasgow!
Permalink
Permalink
Sorry I meant England......no offence to all those taffies and scotsmen. I don't want to stir up a hornets nest here but how does Nth Ireland for example end up a "country" in football terms when there is no such country as Nth Ireland?
What about all the overseas territories then? The following compete in FIFA and are not officially countries according to the UN:
American Samoa [unincorporated unorganized territory of the United States]
Anguilla [overseas territory of the United Kingdom]
Aruba [overseas country in the Kingdom of the Netherlands}
Bermuda [overseas territory of the United Kingdom]
British Virgin Islands [overseas territory of the United Kingdom]
Cayman Islands [overseas territory of the United Kingdom]
Chinese Taipei [legal status in dispute, UN considers Taiwan a province of China]
Cook Islands [self-governing state in free association with New Zealand]
Faroe Islands [self-governing overseas administrative division of Denmark]
Guam [unincorporated organized territory of the United States]
Hong Kong [Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China]
Macau [Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China]
Montserrat [overseas territory of the United Kingdom]
Netherlands Antilles [country in the Kingdom of the Netherlands]
New Caledonia [dependency of France with a sui generis status]
Palestine [legal status in dispute, currently recognized by over 90 countries]
Puerto Rico [unincorporated organized territory associated with the United States]
Tahiti [overseas collectivity of France]
Turks & Cacaos Islands [overseas territory of the United Kingdom]
US Virgin Islands [unincorporated organized territory of the United States]
Permalink
Permalink
You should also read this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_kingdom
The United Kingdom is a unitary state consisting of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales
And also the Prime Minister's Office:
The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Its full name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Great Britain, however, comprises only England, Scotland and Wales.... etc
Permalink
Permalink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland - read the first line.
Additionally passports are titled - The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northen Ireland.
It's kind of like how France and Spain are countries and there is no football team called Europe?
Funnily enough, our head of state is the same as NZ's so why aren't you guys part of a British football team as well??
Scotland and Northern Ireland both have separate parliaments.
Scotland is no 'province'.
And us Welsh have Assembly!!
Great Bill Bailey commedy routine about that.
Permalink
Permalink
[[/QUOTE]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland - read the first line.
Additionally passports are titled - The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northen Ireland.
It's kind of like how France and Spain are countries and there is no football team called Europe?
Funnily enough, our head of state is the same as NZ's so why aren't you guys part of a British football team as well??
Scotland and Northern Ireland both have separate parliaments.
Scotland is no 'province'.
[/QUOTE]
Read the last line of the Wikipedia link " Scotland is no longer a seperate sovereign state"
I have never been able to figure out why Scotland continues to allow itself to be dominated by
London. The Scots are a proud race of people with a strong heritage. Why don't they just become an independant country. Then we would not be having this debate. You may see yourself as a Scot. But to most of the rest of the world you are just a quaint part of Britian.
I agree that FIFA does things a little differently. But the United Nations and other organisations such as the International Olympic Committee see only Britian.
Permalink
Permalink
Continuing with the off topic theme of it all, why is it in some sports that England play as England, sometimes as Great Britain, the cricketers are England and Wales. And why Ireland play Rugby as a united nation?
www.kiwifromthecouch.blogspot.com
Permalink
Permalink
Sorry.....this is way off topic. Perhaps we need a history of the world section
Permalink
Permalink
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/olympic_games/7785935.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_national_football_team
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_national_football_team
The position of FIFA, football's international governing body, is seen as critical as to whether a British team will play in the 2012 Summer Olympics. The SFA's opposition to the plans are rooted primarily in the fear that the Home Nations would be forced to field a combined team in all competitions.[3] This would mean the loss of the special status of the Home Nations, which is established under FIFA's constitution.[19] FIFA President Sepp Blatter
had given assurances to each of the British Associations that their
status would not be affected by fielding a combined team in 2012,
stating:
�
We have confirmed in
writing that they have to provide a Great Britain team for the 2012
Olympics, but the four British associations will not lose the rights
and privileges acquired back in 1947.[20]
�
The SFA refused to change its position, arguing that Blatter's personal opinion and permission may not matter once he has left office, and that they do not wish to jeopardise their status.[3] The case for a GB team appeared to be strengthened by the decision of the F�d�ration Internationale de Volleyball to permit a combined volleyball team to participate at the 2012 Games,[21] but Blatter seemed to change his view in March 2008. He stated that "they should enter only a team composed of players from England",[22] and he suggested that the independent status of the four British associations could be harmed by a unified team.[22]
UEFA chief executive David Taylor, a former chief executive of the SFA, said in August 2008 that a British Olympic team would threaten the existence of the individual home nations.[23] Taylor also said that the unique status of the Home Nations had come under attack before from other FIFA members, and that it was "difficult to see what guarantees could be given" to protect that status.[23]
At a conference held in conjunction with the 2008 FIFA Club World Cup in Japan, the prospect of a UK team for the 2012 Olympics was discussed by the FIFA Executive Committee, who gave their approval.[24]
� The executive committee confirmed that the participation in the 2012 London Olympic Games of a single team representing Great Britain would not affect the existing individual status of the four British football associations. For the Olympic Games, they have to play in one entity. The ball is now in their turf..We expect a solution that will be presented to us for the month of March.
Permalink
Permalink
Meanwhile, as rich Asian clubs send A-League clubs reeling by poaching local talent, Bin Hammam said he would like to see two-way traffic, with more players from Asian countries playing in Australia.
"We have adopted a new rule - three plus one - which stipulates that each team competing in the 2009 Asian Champions League can field a maximum of four foreign players in each match, with at least one player being from an AFC member association," he said.
"In addition, the AFC is encouraging countries to adopt the three-plus-one rule in their own leagues to enable Asian players to widen their opportunities within the continent and enhance Asian football as a whole. It isn't just Asian players. We also want to see Australian players in different Asian leagues."
But Bin Hammam had bad news for New Zealand A-League side Wellington Phoenix, refusing to give ground on the AFC's hardline stance that the club must "become Australian" or be shut out when its league licence expires in 2011.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/football/new-bid-headache-as-asia-boss-backflips/2009/01/31/1232818792605.html?page=2
Hard News2009-02-05 16:36:19
Permalink
Permalink
Read the last line of the Wikipedia link " Scotland is no longer a seperate sovereign state"
I have never been able to figure out why Scotland continues to allow itself to be dominated by
London. The Scots are a proud race of people with a strong heritage. Why don't they just become an independant country. Then we would not be having this debate. You may see yourself as a Scot. But to most of the rest of the world you are just a quaint part of Britian.
I agree that FIFA does things a little differently. But the United Nations and other organisations such as the International Olympic Committee see only Britian.
I don't think it's quite as easy as "why don't they just become an independent country". Why do New Zealand allow themselves to have their head of state based in London? Why don't they just become a republic? I mean, to the rest of the world your just a quaint little part of Australia...see where I am going with this?
Scotland has a devolved parliament, a separate legal system, a separate education system, a separate church, a separate football team, a separate football league, a separate rugby / cricket / hockey etc etc team, a partly separate media among MANY other things.
I would certainly not say we were 'dominated' by London in any way at this point in time.
Steve-O2009-02-06 00:48:30http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe_B5CzbTJo - Caceres winning penalty v Perth - footage from the Fever Zone
Permalink
Permalink
Well, that may be true but Scotland is still on a federal state as part of the United Kingdom, much of its big ticket legislation still comes from Whitehall. It's parliament is fairly toothless, it's really a council and is still a function of UK legislation. I.e it could be reversed by an act of the UK parliament and disbanded.
Normo's coming home
Permalink
Permalink
Well, that may be true but Scotland is still on a federal state as part of the United Kingdom, much of its big ticket legislation still comes from Whitehall. It's parliament is fairly toothless, it's really a council and is still a function of UK legislation. I.e it could be reversed by an act of the UK parliament and disbanded.
A federal state? Considering there is no federal government this is impossible.
It's not 'toothless' at all really. As I have said, there is plenty in Scotland that is completely seperate. The parliament has tax raising powers also. Higher Education in Scotland is free, it's not in England or Wales.
It's no council because there are still councils for each area.
English, Welsh, and Northern Irish people would probably also not agree with your assesment of their countries as a 'federal state'. Probably because it's not true for starters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe_B5CzbTJo - Caceres winning penalty v Perth - footage from the Fever Zone
Permalink
Permalink
james dean give it up. Not only is it waaaay off topic but it's
bollocks. Yes there is such a place as the United Kingdom, but it's not
the same as United England is it. Do the people of Scotland, Wales and
N Ireland not vote for their own government? Or does the whole UK vote
for the English government? Squares are not that hard to see through.
Scotland From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaScotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country that is part of the United Kingdom.[6][7][8] Occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain, it shares a border with England to the south and is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west, and the North Channel and Irish Sea to the southwest. In addition to the mainland, Scotland consists of over 790 islands[9] including the Northern Isles and the Hebrides. Edinburgh, the country's capital and second largest city
Scotland From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaScotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country that is part of the United Kingdom.[6][7][8] Occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain, it shares a border with England to the south and is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west, and the North Channel and Irish Sea to the southwest. In addition to the mainland, Scotland consists of over 790 islands[9] including the Northern Isles and the Hebrides. Edinburgh, the country's capital and second largest city
Permalink
Permalink