Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: US counties, unincorprated territories<br/>
Date: Nov 08, 2001 @ 00:20<br/>
Author: Brendan Whyte (&quot;Brendan Whyte&quot; &lt;brwhyte@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="4451.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="4454.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic4366.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="4451.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="4453.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-766978347">Territories are self-governing, but less sovereign than the states. This has <br/>
  implications for tax and federal funding mainly, and presumably legal <br/>
implications with regard to court systems/police.<br/>
Eg Fireworks are legal in the ACT but not Vic, and probably not NSW.<br/>
I believe there is no speed limit in the NT but that is more a case of low <br/>
population density, and even a state govt there would probably not change <br/>
it.<br/>
The territories developed AFTER federation. NT was part of SA until <br/>
federation, and ACT was part of NSW. Like Washington DC, the ACT was carved <br/>
out to make the federal capital free of interference from any state.<br/>
SA gave the NT to the Commonwealth probably because it didn&#39;t have the  <br/>
ability to develop or administer it properly then. The only real connection <br/>
with Darwin was the overland telegraph line to Adelaide at the time. The <br/>
place was REALLY remote.<br/>
Only now are they finally completing the railways from Alice springs to <br/>
Darwin.<br/>
Offshore island territories allow central govt management etc, and for <br/>
Christmas and Cocos islands, greater autonomy for their unique communities. <br/>
Cocos Is is full of Malay muslims, for example.<br/>
BW<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt;From: &quot;Peter Smaardijk&quot; &lt;<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:smaardijk@...">smaardijk@...</a>&gt;<br/>
&gt;Reply-To: <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com">BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com</a><br/>
&gt;To: <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com">BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com</a><br/>
&gt;Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: US counties, unincorprated territories<br/>
&gt;Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 18:24:19 -0000<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt;--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., PitHokie &lt;pithokie@y...&gt; wrote:<br/>
&gt; &gt; The difference is in name only.  Governmentally, there<br/>
&gt; &gt; is no difference between a state and a commonwealth.<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt;I know that in Germany, two &quot;Laender&quot; have the official designation<br/>
&gt;of &quot;Freistaat&quot;: Bavaria and Saxony. I don&#39;t know whether this has any<br/>
&gt;implications. Does someone know?<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt;And I remember vaguely that the position of Texas is fundamentally<br/>
&gt;different from all other states in the US (because it used to be an<br/>
&gt;independent republic). Can someone say something about that?<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt;What about the difference between territories in countries like<br/>
&gt;Canada, Australia, and Russia (=krai) and the regular subdivisions?<br/>
&gt;Why is it like this and what are the practical implications?<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt;Peter S.<br/>
&gt;<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>_________________________________________________________________<br/>
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp">http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp</a></div>