Sigton wrote:

Zekrom01 wrote:

Sigton wrote:

Scotland is a country

…of the United Kingdom. So, no, it's not independent.

Being a country and being and independent country are two different things.

Sigton

seanbobe wrote:

I personally think we should be able to enter a location.

Zekrom01 wrote:

Sigton wrote:

Zekrom01 wrote:

Sigton wrote:

Scotland is a country

…of the United Kingdom. So, no, it's not independent.

Being a country and being and independent country are two different things.

Sigton

kk, sorry if I didn't understand.
However, I support seanbobe's idea over just adding Scotland:

seanbobe wrote:

I personally think we should be able to enter a location.

Firedrake969 wrote:

Support.
Puerto Rico is on the list.

Sigton wrote:

What I'm trying to say is that Scotland is a country, the UK is a union, and Quebec etc is a state. I think we're all getting the three a bit mixed up here, so here's it put simply; Scotland is a country, surely it should be in the list of countries? Another point is that in films, they always say “London, England” not “London, United Kingdom”. I feel that Scotland is being ignored as a country and instead being viewed as a state, which it is not. Scotland should have Status as a country.

Sigton

DaSpudLord wrote:

Sigton wrote:

What I'm trying to say is that Scotland is a country, the UK is a union, and Quebec etc is a state. I think we're all getting the three a bit mixed up here, so here's it put simply; Scotland is a country, surely it should be in the list of countries? Another point is that in films, they always say “London, England” not “London, United Kingdom”. I feel that Scotland is being ignored as a country and instead being viewed as a state, which it is not. Scotland should have Status as a country.

Sigton

Accoring to Wikipedia, the UK is a country.

BookOwl wrote:

PrincessPanda_test_ wrote:

Mmmmmm…. No support. Scotland is part of United Kingdom. That's like putting “England” and “Wales” in the country list or even putting the name of the states in the country list.

And why can't we have North Carolina in the locations list?
TARHEELS UNITE!!!
This is a joke (kinda)

cheeseeater wrote:

Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England are all part of the United Kingdom. When you use ‘United Kingdom’ as your location, it certainly does not mean you are just a citizen of England. It means that you live in one of the collective of countries that form part of the United Kingdom.

Sure; I'd like to set my location to England just as much as the next guy, but since this United Kingdom system exists, these four countries are united under one name.

As long as this treaty exists, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and England will be known on the internet as the United Kingdom. We can't make an exception for Scratch and create a new location for the 4 countries. We'd then need to create a new location for each state in the USA.

Can't you just put Scotland in your about me? The profile is the only place that you can see the location anyhow, so people can't miss it.

Sorry, no support.

MathlyCat wrote:

cheeseeater wrote:

Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England are all part of the United Kingdom. When you use ‘United Kingdom’ as your location, it certainly does not mean you are just a citizen of England. It means that you live in one of the collective of countries that form part of the United Kingdom.

Sure; I'd like to set my location to England just as much as the next guy, but since this United Kingdom system exists, these four countries are united under one name.

As long as this treaty exists, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and England will be known on the internet as the United Kingdom. We can't make an exception for Scratch and create a new location for the 4 countries. We'd then need to create a new location for each state in the USA.

Can't you just put Scotland in your about me? The profile is the only place that you can see the location anyhow, so people can't miss it.

Sorry, no support.

There is a video on youtube explaining it. Yes Scotland started a country but it has eventually become the “mega”-country of the United Kingdom.

But I semi-support, Canada is a Commonwealth to the UK, yet it is a country, so why not add Scotland?

Blaze349 wrote:

You are all wrong .

Originally England and Scotland were two different countries but when Queen Elizabeth of England died without children her nephew, James of Scotland was given the throne.

So he united the nations as one and that is why it is called the UK.

So no support. The UK is now the official country represented in the UN and such.

Sigton wrote:

Blaze349 wrote:

You are all wrong .

Originally England and Scotland were two different countries but when Queen Elizabeth of England died without children her nephew, James of Scotland was given the throne.

So he united the nations as one and that is why it is called the UK.

So no support. The UK is now the official country represented in the UN and such.

Actually, that's not what happened.

Elizabeth the 1st died without having an heir to the throne, so King James the 6th of Scotland also became King James the 1st of England (The son of Mary Queen of Scots, or Bloody Mary). Even though the two countries had the same monarch, they were still different countries. This went on for a while, and by now it was James' son; James the 7th/2nd. By this time, however, both countries had reformed as another branch of Christianity, where the king was still a Catholic. Unhappy with this, the nobles of England hired William of Orange to kill James the 7th/2nd, and he succeeded, too. This was the end of that particular line of monarchy. Then William demanded the control of every Scottish clan by a certain deadline. One clan was late; the MacDonald clan. They were then slaughtered by the English soldiers. Following this butchery, Scotland was becoming very poor. Ruled by a biased king, they were not receiving any profit from England's ventures, but England was taking profit from Scotland's. In one last hoorah, Scotland put it's last profits in the Darien Scheme. To put a long story short, it failed catastrophically. Things were also turning sour for England, however. The French were threating to attack from the south, where the Scots have always been raring to go from the north. England wanted political security, Scotland wanted a way out of bankruptcy. So a treaty was negotiated; the treaty of the Union. It was here that the UK was formed.

My point is, two countries can be ruled b the same people or person; but still be separate countries.

Sigton

Blaze349 wrote:

Sigton wrote:

Blaze349 wrote:

You are all wrong .

Originally England and Scotland were two different countries but when Queen Elizabeth of England died without children her nephew, James of Scotland was given the throne.

So he united the nations as one and that is why it is called the UK.

So no support. The UK is now the official country represented in the UN and such.

Actually, that's not what happened.

Elizabeth the 1st died without having an heir to the throne, so King James the 6th of Scotland also became King James the 1st of England (The son of Mary Queen of Scots, or Bloody Mary). Even though the two countries had the same monarch, they were still different countries. This went on for a while, and by now it was James' son; James the 7th/2nd. By this time, however, both countries had reformed as another branch of Christianity, where the king was still a Catholic. Unhappy with this, the nobles of England hired William of Orange to kill James the 7th/2nd, and he succeeded, too. This was the end of that particular line of monarchy. Then William demanded the control of every Scottish clan by a certain deadline. One clan was late; the MacDonald clan. They were then slaughtered by the English soldiers. Following this butchery, Scotland was becoming very poor. Ruled by a biased king, they were not receiving any profit from England's ventures, but England was taking profit from Scotland's. In one last hoorah, Scotland put it's last profits in the Darien Scheme. To put a long story short, it failed catastrophically. Things were also turning sour for England, however. The French were threating to attack from the south, where the Scots have always been raring to go from the north. England wanted political security, Scotland wanted a way out of bankruptcy. So a treaty was negotiated; the treaty of the Union. It was here that the UK was formed.

My point is, two countries can be ruled b the same people or person; but still be separate countries.

Sigton

Actually you are incorrect. If the same person rules two countries at once the countries become one politically. This is simply because the person will handle both countries the same way.

Why can't you just be proud of your british heritage? Or did UK abolish treason? I'm pretty sure they had a treason law before but aren't sure today.

IronBit_Studios wrote:

I get that Scotland is rather independent (I appreciate your heritage pride), but the UK is the administrative region. I, in fact, would like to have the specific locations from 1.4 (Boston, Illinois, Scotland, Ontario, etc.)

BookOwl wrote:

BookOwl wrote:

PrincessPanda_test_ wrote:

Mmmmmm…. No support. Scotland is part of United Kingdom. That's like putting “England” and “Wales” in the country list or even putting the name of the states in the country list.

And why can't we have North Carolina in the locations list?
TARHEELS UNITE!!!
This is a joke (kinda)