I am going to take a crack at doing a map or two at some point because I realise things have got a wee bit complex now.
This is a new definition of 'wee bit complex' that I was previously unaware of![]()
We're British. The reaction to parts of Durham flooding was, by and large, to put the kettle on.
"They were firing the rifle and then fired the rocket launcher twice. One of the rockets certainly hit the ship - it went through the side of the liner into a passenger's suite. The couple were in there at the time so it was a bit of an unpleasant experience."
We're British. The reaction to parts of Durham flooding was, by and large, to put the kettle on.
Unless the crisis was a gas/electricity shortage.I'm British - the world would be a better place if every crisis was met by a collective kettle-putting-on-ing
Unless the crisis was a gas/electricity shortage.![]()
Our desire to get a brew on would see us lighting fires and suspending the kettles above them.
I walked past Thande at Sheffield Station yesterday and was tempted to blame him. I wasn't quick enough. Opportunities like that don't come very often.
Alright, from now on that's going to make me paranoidI walked past Thande at Sheffield Station yesterday and was tempted to blame him. I wasn't quick enough. Opportunities like that don't come very often.
Brazil will definitely come up in the near future, but it's more directly tied to events happening in Europe so it basically has to wait for a European update.Likewise I'm wondering if the Brazilians will seize the moment to try to regain their lost territories.
You're absolutely right, I was looking at the wrong river.Ah, I've been eagerly awaiting the ATL version of the Des Moines settlement to be mentioned, but IIRC wasn't it in Britannia province, not Wisconsin province?
That reminds me, I want to ask readers' opinion on something now I'm going to sit down and do an ENA map. The assumption I've been making up till now is that no more provinces were created after Gualpa in the 1820s because:
1) The existing western provinces were admitted too early for dodgy reasons to try to create rotten boroughs (and shires) and since then laws have been passed to stop that and put population requirements into place;
2) That plan backfired though because western voters proved hard to control and ultimately helped groups like the Neutrals, so the establishment east coast parties then became hostile to creating more provinces.
Tying in with the Supremacists' cause of splitting up the Confederations because the east coast power bases are now squashing attempts to create provinces even though the population requirements have been met.
However, looking at the map I'm wondering if it's too far-fetched for this tug-of-war to have been going on for thirty years (or more in some places) with no more provinces being created, only boroughs. Do you think I should stick with this version of events, or retcon a few new western shires to have been created (but still not enough to fit the actual situation on the ground) and redo the election results to fit that? The thing is that it's not as if the OTL USA had actually admitted any states further west than the point that the ATL ENA has admitted provinces, so it's more that the ENA admitted provinces 'way too early' by OTL rules (which I have justified above) - what do you think?
I see what you're getting at here...I don't think there are many viable western provinces not yet created between the reforms putting population requirements on things and the war in 1849...maybe I should stick with things as they are then.Just to clarify, wouldn't this only affect things before the Radicals' reforms?
That's what I was thinking up to now.Seems to me that the aftermath of the GAW is the ideal opportunity for those western proto-provinces to be formally admitted, especially if they play a somewhat pivotal role in the war. As long as they remain sparsely populated outside of the boroughs, the scenario you present makes sense.
It's similar to territories in the OTL US - they get to vote for unofficial local territorial assemblies but don't get to elect any MCPs to Parliament. The Confederate level of government complicates matters though so perhaps I could say they get to elect delegates to Confederate assemblies (but fewer than they would if they were a full province, or say they can only vote on some issues).I'd have to go back and look, but are ENA subjects who live in unorganised territories entitled to vote under the aegis of a borough or confederation anyway?
It's similar to territories in the OTL US - they get to vote for unofficial local territorial assemblies but don't get to elect any MCPs to Parliament. The Confederate level of government complicates matters though so perhaps I could say they get to elect delegates to Confederate assemblies (but fewer than they would if they were a full province, or say they can only vote on some issues).
How are the Indians taking all this? I assume for obvious reasons the Cherokee are firmly in the Carolinian camp, but I am curious about the others.
Likewise I'm wondering if the Brazilians will seize the moment to try to regain their lost territories.