You eat that roasted and stuffed with haggis?

That's taking being a glutton for punishment to a whole new level.

The Rugby is hampered by the same problem that 'Mercan Football has - the ball itself.

The original Murderball (now the name for wheelchair rugby) used a medicine ball (size of a basket ball, weights something like 20 lbs and does not bounce) instead of an inflated pig's bladder and disposed of the rule-book completely. The aim was to get the ball into the opponents goal "by any means".

There is a version of the game that dispenses with the notion of the "ball" completely called British Bulldog, or just Bulldog, as seen here featuring players from the British Lions and the NZ All Blacks:

Of course the Untied States of America would not exist at all, Canada would run the entire Atlantic coast from Baffin Island down to Florida and its western border would follow the Appalachian Mountains, the next bit heading west would be Native America, then Spanish of some form, and finally the South and West Coast would be Mexican. Alaska would still be Russian and Hawaii an independent state (though they'd still have the Union flag as part of the design of their national flag).

Having won the 7 Years' War, (which included the French and Indian wars) and suppressed the American Uprising (sorry, history would not have recorded it as a "war"or a "revolution"), which would have further humiliated the French, who were directly to blame for both conflicts. This would have dramatically increased France's national debt and sparked the French Revolution sooner, but this time Britain (and possibly Spain) would have stepped in to aid Louis XVI instead of just sending Lesie Howard to rescue a few nobs and so France would still be a monarchy, albeit just a titular one. Therefore the French Revolutionary Wars and Napoleonic Wars would not have happened thus halting the spread of Republicanism that ultimately led to the Russian Revolution. Which would also have removed the major impetus of the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions - that is "total warfare". Industrialisation would still have happened, but at a much slower pace and probably not with Britain at its centre - thus Europe and the American colonies would have remained predominately rural and agricultural, and without that, so would the rest of the world. 

Without concept of "total warfare" WW1 would not have escalated as quickly or as globally as it did. France, Russia and Britain would still have supported Serbia, and Germany would have supported  Austria-Hungary, but on a much smaller scale and confined to the Balkans - the war would have been the short war everyone had predicted it to be. The result of which would not have been an armistice so the Treaty of Versailles would not have put reparation debt on Germany - net result being - no Hitler and no WW2. Also a shorter, lower scale war would not have destabilised Russia so no Revolution of 1917 and the Romanov dynasty would still be in power. 

Real football?? No, it's not real football 'tis a load of s

No te entiendo?   Y que es esta chingadera de Ingles?

Sure, if Britain had been successful in suppressing the uprising they would have made an example of the leaders, especially those who had signed the Declaration of Independence and, (based upon how Britain dealt with the leaders of similar uprisings before and after), it would have been harsh and brutal resulting in treason trials, executions and transportation to Australia as well as having their land confiscated - the right to bear arms would not exist (nor would the right to bare arms or arm bears). This would have left the 13-Colonies in no position to mount a second uprising. The losing colonists would have received a hefty tax increase, (just as they did for winning), however they probably would have been granted token representation in the British Parliament before being absorbed into British North America. I suspect that retaliation against the French for their involvement would have ultimately resulted in British North America becoming Canada considerably sooner than it did. As I outlined earlier, the borders in North America would have run North-South rather than East-West as they do now. The American Civil War would not have happened and the subsequent push west would not have happened, so the phrase "Wild West" would now refer to Devon and Cornwall and bits of Wales.

The root cause of both the American and French revolutions was the Seven Years' War resulting in heavy taxation in France and Britain to pay for it. Because the French lost all the land they occupied in North America to Britain, Spain and the Native Americans and imposed a regressive tax system on their population the French Revolution was inevitable. So securing a victory against the British for the 13 Colonies without regaining any of the land back for France was of no comfort to the people of France - win, lose or not fight at all would only have changed when the French Revolution occurred, not if. However the outcome of the "13-Colony Uprising" would have determined how Britain reacted to the French Revolution. It would also have affected Britain's relationship with Spain, and thus Spain's relationship with France and Portugal so not have led to Spain's decline as a world power, the Spanish Empire would have lasted a while longer until it reached the tipping-point of owning an empire costing more than it reaped.

What is harder to predict is the effect on Britain itself since losing the 13-colonies was seen as an embarrassment at the time but didn't affect Britain's position as a world power, the British Empire continued unaffected for another century or more - India and the West Indies were far more lucrative prizes than the plantations of Virginia et al. History suggests that Britain would have continued to be Nasty Colonial B*st*rds regardless of the outcome. On the upside, Mel Gibson would be an Australian sheep farmer who wears Union Jack underpants and has a picture of HRH Elizabeth Windsor over his bed.

And yes probably there wouldn't have been school shootings... 

In other words, that bloody war could, in retrospect, be seen as the beginning of the end for a once great country.

I 'ad that Nigel Farage in the back of me cab once.................

I've eaten "authentic" fisn'n'chips on Pier 39 in San Francisco ... the portion size was indeed ridiculous. However the fish was excellent with the batter light and perfectly cooked, the only disappointment was that the chips were "fries". Can't comment on whether mushy peas were present or not - I can't abide the revolting muck - it's baby food for adults.

As has been observed previously on this forum, "soccer" is public school* slang for Association Football to differentiate it from Rugby Football, which is abbreviated to "rugger" ... the toffs would have probably called North American Handegg "gridders" or something.

*Of course "public school" means "private school" such as Eton and Harrow.

Yeah, good point.

 

That about sounds right ......

Are you referring to British cuisine? 

Pretty bland answer I know. 

I reckon we would also have cool variants of the British accent, though it wouldn't actually be pleasant to us in this world...just the norm. So actually that would suck! 

Since I have never learnt Spanish and do not live in a Spanish speaking country, that is a foregone conclusion of no consequence. 

Fewer people would be using less.

No more difficult than immigrating to British UK. Not so sure that immigrating to Spanish US or Mexican US would be a walk in the park though.