England? Great Britain? United Kingdom?

[Chester & Brewster]

For those of you who always wondered what the difference is, this short film explains it all

http://devour.com/video/the-united-kingdom-explained/

[Gettingwarmer]

Very good

[Globaliser]

That was great!

 

Wouldn't have guessed that South Georgia has more people than the Falklands.

 

Also, it's only been fairly recently that people in the British Overseas Territories have had full British citizenship. That wasn't possible before Hong Kong's handover to China, both for political/diplomatic reasons (China would not have approved) and political/practical reasons (Hong Kong being by far the biggest British Dependent Territory, as the former Crown Colonies were then known). Only after Hong Kong's handover was it possible to rename them British Overseas Territories and to grant full British citizenship to their inhabitants. But IIRC, this still does not apply to those from the Overseas Territories on Cyprus.

[jocap]

Thanks- great little film.

Jo.

[whogo]

That was great!

 

Wouldn't have guessed that South Georgia has more people than the Falklands.

That struck me, too, and I believe it is in error. The South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands website says, "At the height of the whaling period some 2,000 people lived on the island. Now there are no permanent residents - but there are two British Antarctic Research Stations (Bird Island and King Edward Point), Government Officers and museum curators during the summer months." http://www.sgisland.gs/index.php/%28h%29the_island

 

Population of the Falkland Islands is 3,140 per the CIA World Factbook. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html

[scottbee]

For those of you who always wondered what the difference is, this short film explains it all

http://devour.com/video/the-united-kingdom-explained/

 

It's close; but England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are still not technically countries as they fail most of the determining factors that make them countries, and the fact that no other political entity recognizes them as countries. They are merely called countries, but have similar powers to states in the USA or provinces in Canada; and have regional governments that exist due to an act passed in the UK parliament recognizing them.

 

(the only international groups that recognize them as separate nations are some sporting organizations like FIFA)

[Globaliser]

It's close; but England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are still not technically countries as they fail most of the determining factors that make them countries, and the fact that no other political entity recognizes them as countries. They are merely called countries, but have similar powers to states in the USA or provinces in Canada; and have regional governments that exist due to an act passed in the UK parliament recognizing them.

In part, it depends on what you mean by "country". There is no hard-edged definition of such an entity.

 

They would not be regarded as true independent States (with a capital S) in the public international law sense. This is because the conduct of foreign relations is in the hands of the government in Westminster. But that is not determinative of whether they are "countries", because there are places that are generally regarded as independent which do not conduct their own foreign relations - Monaco is one of these.

 

And they certainly have many attributes of countries. The federation in the UK is looser than the federations of Canada or the USA, and more so with the greater autonomy put in place since 1997. There are also differences between them: Wales is "closer" to England than the others are, for legal and historical reasons.

 

Perhaps the most visible manifestation for a visitor of this looser federation is that Scotland issues its own currency, which none of the Canadian provinces or US states do.

 

And the political set-up for Northern Ireland means that during the times when there was no functioning devolved government there, Northern Ireland's administration had most of the characteristics of traditional colonial government. But that shows the "distance": there are former British colonies which have long been regarded as practically independent for all day-to-day purposes: Hong Kong was much like that (even conducting its own trade negotiations), and both Bermuda and the Caymans are still.

 

So I don't think that it's inaccurate to describe England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as "countries" which together form the independent State of the United Kingdom.

[Coolcruise02]

For those of you who always wondered what the difference is, this short film explains it all

http://devour.com/video/the-united-kingdom-explained/

 

THANK YOU !!!! I'm still a little confused but this was very helpful. :)

[scottbee]

In part, it depends on what you mean by "country". There is no hard-edged definition of such an entity.

 

They would not be regarded as true independent States (with a capital S) in the public international law sense. This is because the conduct of foreign relations is in the hands of the government in Westminster. But that is not determinative of whether they are "countries", because there are places that are generally regarded as independent which do not conduct their own foreign relations - Monaco is one of these.

 

And they certainly have many attributes of countries. The federation in the UK is looser than the federations of Canada or the USA, and more so with the greater autonomy put in place since 1997. There are also differences between them: Wales is "closer" to England than the others are, for legal and historical reasons.

 

Perhaps the most visible manifestation for a visitor of this looser federation is that Scotland issues its own currency, which none of the Canadian provinces or US states do.

 

And the political set-up for Northern Ireland means that during the times when there was no functioning devolved government there, Northern Ireland's administration had most of the characteristics of traditional colonial government. But that shows the "distance": there are former British colonies which have long been regarded as practically independent for all day-to-day purposes: Hong Kong was much like that (even conducting its own trade negotiations), and both Bermuda and the Caymans are still.

 

So I don't think that it's inaccurate to describe England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as "countries" which together form the independent State of the United Kingdom.

 

They are countries in name only. While people in the UK like to call them countries, their existence is much much closer to that of states or provinces.

 

There are commonly used determining factors in being considered a 'country'; and Scotland/N.Ireland/Wales fail some of the important ones such as your regional government existing because of an act of another political entity; and that the rules of another country/parliament 'trump' yours in all cases. (Again, much like state/federal jurisdiction in the USA)

 

Also, Scotland/N.Ireland/Wales do not have separate currency. As for some Scottish (and N.Irish) banks issuing their own currency, they're actually promissory notes payable by the issuing bank; it would be like people using $1, $5 and $10 cashier's cheques from a major bank as currency; the official currency is still the UK Pound. Due to a quirk of the banking statutes in the UK, there actually is no legal tender in the form of paper notes in Scotland.

 

Lastly, other than some sporting organizations like FIFA, no one else in the world recognizes them as independent countries; there are no passports, no UN recognition, no separate country codes (iso 3166).

[William Dean]

There are commonly used determining factors in being considered a 'country'; and Scotland/N.Ireland/Wales fail some of the important ones......that the rules of another country/parliament 'trump' yours in all cases.

 

Which is the case for all of the EU - European Law takes precedence over National Law.

 

WD

[Freecall]

Scotland ....... still not technically countries

I would not recommend you saying that in a Glasgow pub on a Saturday night!

 

:eek:

 

.

[William Dean]

I would not recommend you saying that in a Glasgow pub on a Saturday night!

 

:eek:

 

.

 

What is special about Saturday night? I'd have thought any time would have much the same effect!

 

WD

[celle]

It's close; but England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are still not technically countries as they fail most of the determining factors that make them countries, and the fact that no other political entity recognizes them as countries. They are merely called countries, but have similar powers to states in the USA or provinces in Canada; and have regional governments that exist due to an act passed in the UK parliament recognizing them.

 

(the only international groups that recognize them as separate nations are some sporting organizations like FIFA)

 

Hi Scottbee,

 

I've debated this with you before.

 

Suffice to say that people from the two different sides of the Atlantic view this differently!

 

There is a whole lot of very old history concerning the countries that make up the UK, which should not be discounted by those who now only view the current situation.

[tartanexile81]

I would not recommend you saying that in a Glasgow pub on a Saturday night!

 

:eek:

 

.

 

And don't tell me that on a cruise critic forum either!! I am very proud of my country even though I am currently living elsewhere. I always give my nationality as Scottish as I see Scotland as a nation not like a US state in the least.

[Globaliser]

... Scotland/N.Ireland/Wales fail some of the important ones such as your regional government existing because of an act of another political entity; ...

Well, that rules out Canada, then, whose government exists only because of an act of another political entity, namely the Westminster parliament. (And Australia, and New Zealand, and ...)

 

Couple that with what William Dean says, and you can see that things are not nearly as black and white as you'd like to think.

 

Indeed, maybe we should have an essay competition. "The extent to which Canada was an independent country between 1867 and 1982: Discuss."

[scottbee]

Which is the case for all of the EU - European Law takes precedence over National Law.

 

Only when the government's of the countries cede jurisdiction to the EU.

...To this end, its Member States cede part of their sovereignty...

http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/introduction/treaty_en.htm

 

The UK passed a law to allow the EU to have precedence on certain issues, and could happily repeal that law.

[scottbee]

Well, that rules out Canada, then, whose government exists only because of an act of another political entity, namely the Westminster parliament. (And Australia, and New Zealand, and ...)

 

Couple that with what William Dean says, and you can see that things are not nearly as black and white as you'd like to think.

 

Indeed, maybe we should have an essay competition. "The extent to which Canada was an independent country between 1867 and 1982: Discuss."

 

Not quite. The Scottish parliament cannot enact laws over issues that the UK parliament has not delegated to it; whereas Canada/Aus/NZ could.

 

I know this is a hot topic for those people; but I'd like to post one quote here;

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the full name of the country. Scotland is a kingdom within the United Kingdom (UK), and forms part of Britain (the largest island) and Great Britain (which includes the Scottish islands). As the UK has no written constitution in the usual sense, constitutional terminology is fraught with difficulties of interpretation and it is common usage nowadays to describe the four constituent parts of the UK (Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland) as “countries”.

Oh, I suppose I should quote the source of this; The Scottish Parliament's FAQs. Even Scotland admits that the country is the UK.

 

The other major determining factor is recognition of it being a country; by other countries; and I can think of no country in the world that recognizes (politically) "Scotland" as a country, including, Scotland itself.

[celle]

Not quite. The Scottish parliament cannot enact laws over issues that the UK parliament has not delegated to it; whereas Canada/Aus/NZ could.

 

I know this is a hot topic for those people; but I'd like to post one quote here;

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the full name of the country. Scotland is a kingdom within the United Kingdom (UK), and forms part of Britain (the largest island) and Great Britain (which includes the Scottish islands). As the UK has no written constitution in the usual sense, constitutional terminology is fraught with difficulties of interpretation and it is common usage nowadays to describe the four constituent parts of the UK (Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland) as “countries”.

Oh, I suppose I should quote the source of this; The Scottish Parliament's FAQs. Even Scotland admits that the country is the UK.

 

The other major determining factor is recognition of it being a country; by other countries; and I can think of no country in the world that recognizes (politically) "Scotland" as a country, including, Scotland itself.

 

It doesn't really matter what you think, or what you choose to quote - because others (me included) can find just as many examples to support their point of view. The internet is full of pages that call England, Scotland, Wales a " country", as well as pages that support your argument.

 

The definition of a country that you choose to use is only one definition, and not the only valid one.

 

Why bother to argue this? It doesn't really matter and you will offend many

who are sure that they are English, Scottish, Welsh, or Irish.

 

The comparison that many people from North America draw between their provinces or states and the different countries that make up the United Kingdom is simplistic and inaccurate. The relationship between the constitiuent countries of the UK is more complicated and has centuries of history behind it.

[newport dave]

Got to agree with Scottbee in part, as in Wales is not a country, just a Principality of England..;););)

[Globaliser]

Only when the government's of the countries cede jurisdiction to the EU.

...To this end, its Member States cede part of their sovereignty...

Which is exactly what Scotland did when it joined the Union.

 

So what's the difference?

[Globaliser]

The Scottish parliament cannot enact laws over issues that the UK parliament has not delegated to it; whereas Canada/Aus/NZ could.

So why did Canada have to come, cap in hand, to Westminster in 1982 to ask Westminster to amend the Canadian constitution one last time?

 

Could it, just possibly, be that there were things that Westminster had yet not delegated to the local legislature in Ottawa?

 

Did that prevent Canada being regarded as independent before 1982? Perhaps it did, in your eyes. Perhaps you would argue that Canada was also not a country until after the Canada Act 1982.

The other major determining factor is recognition of it being a country; by other countries; and I can think of no country in the world that recognizes (politically) "Scotland" as a country, including, Scotland itself.

You are, again, confusing "country" and "independent State". Scotland is not the latter, but it isn't inaccurate to describe it as the former.

[Elizanessie]

Thank you everyone for your input on this thread.

 

I am now closing this thread :)