No doubt lots of money will be spent on " rebranding" and new letterheads etc. What happens when Scotland becomes independent and UK no longer exists ? More money spent on more letterheads. May not be in my lifetime given that I am no longer young ( I am the oldest of my extended family) but come it will in the forseeable future.
Why not have a more transferable name?
Another name change?
Re: Another name change?
The UK will continue to exist but Cycling UK will no longer represent Scottish cyclists. Just like they no longer represent cyclists from the Isle of Man, not that any decent cyclists have ever come from there 
LEJOG 2009 - http://www.jochta.com/lejog/
Re: Another name change?
Very good point!
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is still extant.
The Kingdom of Great Britain is still extant too, and is defined as .............
Politically, Great Britain refers to the whole of England, Scotland and Wales in combination, but not Northern Ireland; it includes islands, such as the Isle of Wight, Anglesey, the Isles of Scilly, the Hebrides and the island groups of Orkney and Shetland, that are part of England, Wales, or Scotland. It does not include the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, which are self-governing dependent territories.
The political union that joined the kingdoms of England and Scotland happened in 1707 when the Acts of Union ratified the 1706 Treaty of Union and merged the parliaments of the two nations, forming the Kingdom of Great Britain, which covered the entire island. Prior to this, a personal union had existed between these two countries since the 1603 Union of the Crowns under James VI of Scotland and I of England.
Therefore, CyclingUK is a bit presumptive maybe?
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is still extant.
The Kingdom of Great Britain is still extant too, and is defined as .............
Politically, Great Britain refers to the whole of England, Scotland and Wales in combination, but not Northern Ireland; it includes islands, such as the Isle of Wight, Anglesey, the Isles of Scilly, the Hebrides and the island groups of Orkney and Shetland, that are part of England, Wales, or Scotland. It does not include the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, which are self-governing dependent territories.
The political union that joined the kingdoms of England and Scotland happened in 1707 when the Acts of Union ratified the 1706 Treaty of Union and merged the parliaments of the two nations, forming the Kingdom of Great Britain, which covered the entire island. Prior to this, a personal union had existed between these two countries since the 1603 Union of the Crowns under James VI of Scotland and I of England.
Therefore, CyclingUK is a bit presumptive maybe?
Mick F. Cornwall
-
Giles Pargiter
- Posts: 65
- Joined: 15 Sep 2012, 11:34pm
- Location: N & Mid Wales.
Re: Another name change?
That is exactly what I think.
In my view CyclingUK is a short lived, exclusive name.
"Short lived" for the political reasons mentioned. "Exclusive" because although as a UK based organisation we are neccessarily mostly occupied with UK cycling issues it fails to set us in the international context within which we live. You notice their are quite a number of international contributers to this forum? Why should any international person feel in the slightest way that we are so self preoccupied that we don't fully extend any knowledge or support to them also? Why shouldn't any international individual or club not be able to be affiliated with us if they so wish? So that we can benefit from their richness of experience and knowledge as they us. After all we are supposed to be about "inclusive" cycling.
When one considers the way that people divide themselves in order to compete, "British cycling" is no doubt a good name for the organisation that it represents - mostly occupied with sport and competition. Any such name is not good for us with our broader "inclusive" mandate.
So for these reasons I think it is a short sighted, zenophobic, narrow minded "brand"
I also think that as we already had a name that avoided all these issues and is redolent of a history which is second to none, with an original mandate that is every bit as relevant now as it was at first inception and our leaders and betters(?) failed to make proper use of that, when in reality it is a brand that even the likes of Coca cola ought to envy. What use is the new name anyway?
Far as I know any journey at all undertaken purely for the purpose of the excursion is a "tour", whether it is a diversion up some side street while shopping or taking the children through a park on the way home from school or indeed some "epic" world circumnambulation. I think that we should have extolled great pedanticism about this in order to bring about the realisation that just about anyone using a bicycle does in fact go on tour.
Must say though (hand in hand with this subject) that I think it is high time CTC governance structure is overhauled. It has been more like a bunch of school kids squabbling about who has which coloured sweets!- Lord of the flies springs to mind. . . We shall see as we shall. I would prefer to see us as a not for profit company such as Greenpeace UK or Amnesty UK, who have been able to withstand many destruction attempts and still become acknowledged as world leading "brands". It would allow us to considerably broaden the way that we undertake our activities.
If "cyclingUK" does become a strong brand I think it will have just about nothing to do with the name and everything to do with more focussed and decisive leadership.
In my view CyclingUK is a short lived, exclusive name.
"Short lived" for the political reasons mentioned. "Exclusive" because although as a UK based organisation we are neccessarily mostly occupied with UK cycling issues it fails to set us in the international context within which we live. You notice their are quite a number of international contributers to this forum? Why should any international person feel in the slightest way that we are so self preoccupied that we don't fully extend any knowledge or support to them also? Why shouldn't any international individual or club not be able to be affiliated with us if they so wish? So that we can benefit from their richness of experience and knowledge as they us. After all we are supposed to be about "inclusive" cycling.
When one considers the way that people divide themselves in order to compete, "British cycling" is no doubt a good name for the organisation that it represents - mostly occupied with sport and competition. Any such name is not good for us with our broader "inclusive" mandate.
So for these reasons I think it is a short sighted, zenophobic, narrow minded "brand"
I also think that as we already had a name that avoided all these issues and is redolent of a history which is second to none, with an original mandate that is every bit as relevant now as it was at first inception and our leaders and betters(?) failed to make proper use of that, when in reality it is a brand that even the likes of Coca cola ought to envy. What use is the new name anyway?
Far as I know any journey at all undertaken purely for the purpose of the excursion is a "tour", whether it is a diversion up some side street while shopping or taking the children through a park on the way home from school or indeed some "epic" world circumnambulation. I think that we should have extolled great pedanticism about this in order to bring about the realisation that just about anyone using a bicycle does in fact go on tour.
Must say though (hand in hand with this subject) that I think it is high time CTC governance structure is overhauled. It has been more like a bunch of school kids squabbling about who has which coloured sweets!- Lord of the flies springs to mind. . . We shall see as we shall. I would prefer to see us as a not for profit company such as Greenpeace UK or Amnesty UK, who have been able to withstand many destruction attempts and still become acknowledged as world leading "brands". It would allow us to considerably broaden the way that we undertake our activities.
If "cyclingUK" does become a strong brand I think it will have just about nothing to do with the name and everything to do with more focussed and decisive leadership.
Re: Another name change?
Giles Pargiter wrote:In my view CyclingUK is a short lived, exclusive name.
Some were hoping it was indicative of a desire for the organisation to become more inclusive and less anglocentric