England kit controversy

[Aurelius]

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

Well I've seen their new kit, made presumably by the sponsors Adidas. Like all things there are two sides to it.

Their argument (the players) is that they want high performance clothing. They want high performance synthetics that keep you warm with a minimum of bulkiness and layers and keep you cool in warmer weather. They do have a point, traditional Cricket wear isn't the most practical even if it is the most conventional looking.

I always got the impression that the sweater was very effective at keeping the players warm in the cold English weather. Obviously I don't know what the new clothing feels like to try on, but it looks awfully thin to me.

Personally I couldn't care less what they wear, I'm much more interested in 'what' they do rather than 'what' they wear. It's the 'red piping' of their new kit that irritates me the most, there's no need for it.

Personally I like the red piping. I think there's room for a little colour in the Test uniform- I think the green in the South Africans' uniform looks very smart, and I think anything that physically distinguishes the teams from each other is a good thing.

Another thing I've always found particularly curious is where the 'blue' comes from in their clothes. It's the ECB - England and Wales Cricket Board, Englands colours are red and white, Wales' colours are red and green, the blue in the Union Jack comes from the cross of St Andrew - which is Scotlands colour.

So why are the England Cricketers using Scotlands blue in their kit when Scotland is independant as a Cricketing nation?

I don't even know where we get Green and Gold from!

I think another question is, why is Scotland an independent cricketing nation at all? There's no country called Scotland, just as there's no country called England or Wales either. It's all Britain, right? Even if the team continues to be called "England" it just makes sense to include Scotland into the ECB. That way Scottish players would get more regular professional games, and it would free up an extra space at the World Cup for another fringe nation to play, and hopefully spread the game there instead of Scotland, which is just part of Britain in the first place!

[Occasional Fan]

Great Britain - two countries (England, Scotland) and a principality (Wales). That's a political definition: geographically Great Britain is the largest of the British Isles.

United Kingdom - Great Britain plus another country (Northern Ireland, sometimes referred to as a - or the - Province, but actually it is a country in its own right and therefore has its own parliament).

British Isles - to the irritation of some, the United Kingdom, some Crown dependencies such as the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, all of which are self governing in their own right, including Sark which is presently run by a benign dictatorship, and the Republic of Ireland.

Europe - a geographic entity only, which includes all the above and an assortment of republics, grand duchies and monarchies which can safely be ignored for the purposes of this exercise as they tend to be isolated as soon as there is a dockers' strike in Dover.

European Union - not sure; better ask Ern.

[Aurelius]

That whole situation is indecipherable!

The Prime Minister is the British Prime Minister, isn't it? How can he be the PM of two countries and a principality? How about passports to go from England to Scotland-which, apparently, you don't need? Is the Pound worth more in Wales than it is in England? And if Northern Ireland is a self-governing country, then why are they part of the UK? It's just crazy...

[Statto]

Basically because at one point in time (or actually several) they were all ruled by one king in the days of the monarchy having control. The Kings of various regions / Wales / Scotland etc gave their power to one King, who ruled everything. Then they split and the same thing happened again in 1603 when the Scottish King was offered the English (and Welsh, which have been joined for longer) throne and became the King of Great Britain.
The Prime Minister is now PM of that area, but campaigns for devolution have lead to the Scottish being given their own Parliament with a substantial amount of autonomy, the Welsh have been given an assembly with some autonomy and the English just have the existing Parliament. The really bizarre thing comes now that the Scots are governing themselves, but the Parliament of GB, which effectively only governs England now, still has the Scottish and Welsh MPs who can vote on laws and motions which will never be implemented in their country as they have their own Parliament making decisions purely for Scotland / Wales. This is known as the West Lothian Question.
Foreign affairs still seem to be entirely conducted in the British Parliament, but domestic matters are run largely individually by each regional parliament / assembly.

[Aurelius]

Thanks for that Statto. I knew some sort of Royal succession was involved, but I had no idea how complicated British politics are. The fact that the UK is represented in the Olympics doesn't help either!

So I take it that the reference to "breaking up the Union" means that Britain is officially one country, with England, Scotland and Wales effectively being run as States?

[Occasional Fan]

The Union, as referred to in that context, refers to the Union of England (and Wales) with Scotland which was brought about by the Act of Union 1707. Generally, recent discussion about breaking up the Union has referred to the concept of full independence for Scotland. It does not generally refer to the same concept for Northern Ireland, nor to the idea of unifying the island of Ireland.

The issue of passports is something of a red herring. You're right that there is no passport control between England and Scotland, but neither is there passport control between the UK and the Republic of Ireland, which are certainly two independent countries.

One other way to look at what a country means in an international context is to consider the body which sends its Ambassadors out to the world and receives foreign Ambassadors. Ours are all appointed by Her Majesty in her capacity as Head of State for the United Kingdom, and she formally receives all foreign Ambassadors. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland do not, in their own right, have any Ambassadors, nor do they receive any.

And Idi Amin was the only person who recognised himself as The Last King of Scotland.

[Occasional Fan]

Well, I was at Trent Bridge yesterday, and yes, the new kit is white and looked it. And it looked fine to me - no objections to the kit itself whatsoever. Just one thing: I believe it was Michael Vaughan, but definitely there was someone wearing a long sleeved undershirt and a short sleeved top over it. That just looked scruffy, but you can't blame the kit for that. And it was no more scruffy than turning up unshaven at the start of play, which seems to be a fashion among some of our players.