|
Post by Wasp on Feb 3, 2008 13:41:06 GMT
Plenty of other national teams with a very small population. Iceland just over 300,000. Faroe islands has almost 48,000, Latvia 2mill etc so population size has nothing to do with it.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 3, 2008 14:34:20 GMT
When was the last time those small countries get anywhere worthwhile in sport?
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Feb 3, 2008 18:23:36 GMT
What about Denmark? Denmark won Euro 92. Denmark has a population of about 5 mill, and has won more in the last 20 yrs than many of the bigger countries such as England. San Marino scored the fastest goal in world cup history as well.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 3, 2008 21:26:43 GMT
Denmark isnt cut in two and has a better league than we do to pick its talent.
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Feb 3, 2008 22:05:13 GMT
Jim you asked when was the last time those small countries got anything worthwhile in football and I answered you. What has being cut in two got to do with anything. Plenty or rather most countries have borders with neighbouring countries and some have some kind of conflict with their neighbours. So why is N.Ireland and the republic any different?
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 3, 2008 22:42:46 GMT
Because N.Ireland and the Republic are not seperate nations, they where never historically seperate nations and they never will be seperate nations, its the one nation weither you want to see it that way or not, political borders cannot destroy that, and it only harms its sport.
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Feb 3, 2008 23:26:13 GMT
It is one nation whether I want to see it or not?? Do you not mean it is two nations whether you want to see it or not.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 4, 2008 0:40:41 GMT
If you were to split North East England tomorrow from the rest of the country, would it be two nations?
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Feb 4, 2008 11:38:38 GMT
If it had two different governments, laws, jurisdictions, security forces, two different peoples where one set wants fuck all to do with the other country as in terms of being as one etc then of course it would be two different nations. What about former Yugoslavia etc they split and they are far from being just one nation. They are nations within their own right.
|
|
|
Post by earl on Feb 4, 2008 11:59:27 GMT
If it had two different governments, laws, jurisdictions, security forces, two different peoples where one set wants fuck all to do with the other country as in terms of being as one etc then of course it would be two different nations. What about former Yugoslavia etc they split and they are far from being just one nation. They are nations within their own right. Yugoslavia is a bad example WASPy. they were single states originally, grouped together under an artificial umbrella under communism. The split up of that region was inevitable. What happend there was the complete opposite as to what happened here. One dictionary definition of the word nation is: an aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family, often speaking the same language or cognate languages.Under this definition, there may be two states on this island, but there is only one nation. The Irish nation is completely different to the Irish state. Millions of Irish Americans would consider themselves a part of the Irish nation.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 4, 2008 16:07:10 GMT
If it had two different governments, laws, jurisdictions, security forces, two different peoples where one set wants fuck all to do with the other country as in terms of being as one etc then of course it would be two different nations. What about former Yugoslavia etc they split and they are far from being just one nation. They are nations within their own right. Ah but you dont have some of that. Two different governments - imposed Two different laws - imposed Two different jurisdictions - imposed Two different security forces - imposed Two different peoples - Not exactly, half of this state are for a united Ireland, less than 1/6 of this island are "different peoples" and even then its a more modern thing. Unionists in the days of the partition saw themselves as Irish-British, meaning they saw themselves as part of the Irish nation within Britain. The idea of "we are British and nothing else whatsoever" doesnt even exist in the rest of Britain, only here, by some unionists, not all. Not to mention I said nation, not political institutions. You would be 100% correct in saying two different states, but a nation is not automatically a state, a nation is a people, culture, historically what has been one, the border could never destroy that and it never will.
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Feb 4, 2008 19:54:49 GMT
I am not part of the Irish nation, I am not Irish. The country which I was born into is seperate from th other country on this island. I have no problem whatsoever with anyone born in Ireland or wanting to be Irish or part of the Irish nation etc. But I am not and hopefully never will be.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 4, 2008 20:24:32 GMT
Well I am part of that nation, and so is the nationalist population and a fair amount of the unionist population, political desires do not need to be the same.
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Feb 4, 2008 21:02:37 GMT
I don't know too amy Unionists in N.Ireland that are part of the Irish nation, infact I know none but there could be I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 5, 2008 3:29:55 GMT
Blik said he considered himself Irish as-well as British, so theres one, and thats only on a forum. Don't forget those that couldn't give a shite about politics and just have more in common with anyone else born on this island than they would with someone born on another island. Not to mention the loyalists that ended up learning Irish while in prison, the many protestants involved in the irish state and those that see themselvs as Irish within the union.
|
|