Talk:United Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article United Kingdom was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copyedited by Chaosdruid, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 17 May 2011. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
 
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:
Archive
Archives
  1. September 2001 – August 2004
  2. August 2004 – April 2005
  3. April 2005 – November 2005
  4. November 2005 – February 2006
  5. February 2006 – May 2006
  6. May 2006 – July 2006
  7. July 2006 – November 2006
  8. November 2006 – April 2007
  9. April 2007 – July 2007
  10. August – December 2007, part 1
  11. August – December 2007, part 2
  12. August – December 2007, part 3
  13. August – December 2007, part 4
  14. August – December 2007, part 5
  15. December 2007 – May 2008
  16. June 2008 – October 2008
  17. October 2008 – March 2009
  18. March 2009 – October 2009
  19. November 2009 – August 2010
  20. August 2010 – December 2010
  21. December 2010 – January 2011
  22. January 2011 – March 2011
  23. March 2011 – May 2011
  24. May 2011
  25. May 2011 – August 2011
  26. August 2011 – August 2012
  27. August 2012 – September 2013
  28. September 2013 –

Country/State debate archives
  1. June 2005 – March 2006
  2. April 2006 – May 2006

Terminology debate archives
  1. July 2006 – September 2006
  2. September 2006 – October 2006

Subdivision name debate archives
  1. April 2008 – June 2008


Formation[edit]

Constitutionally the United Kingdom is a direct continuation of the Kingdom of England, I do not see why the formation of it (and the Kingdom of Scotland) should not be included. The act of union 1707 didn't create a new nation, as in the United States.

Now Rob984 says: "Why England? Why not Wessex? Or Great Britain and Ireland? Undue weight on two predecessors" - Great Britain is there, Act of Union 1707 incase you hadn't noticed. Ireland constitutionally isn't that important - as it was a English client state. You say why 'England' - it was the direct predecessor state.... it existed for a great deal longer than either United Kingdoms have thus far. Undue weight would be including Act of Union 1707 and Act of Union 1801, or us joining the EU, and not the formation of the countries that formed the union, your logic makes no sense - and certainly does not constitute a reasonable argument for reverting my edit.

If you want to add Wessex - add it. The French article for example, has the Kingdom of France and it's various predecessor states - despite each constitutionally differing to a far greater degree than England/UK. Alexsau1991 (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, you've been reverted by 2 different editors so please don't try to reinstate until you have consensus supporting your edit per WP:BRD. Secondly, your view that the UK is a continuation of England and 1707 didn't create a "new nation" is at best contentious and at worst plain wrong - either way you need to provide sources for it. Thirdly, the state was formed in 1707/1801, the infobox could be cluttered up with any number of predecessor states - it should be kept clear and straightforward. DeCausa (talk) 20:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Alexsau, my view is that the UK is, in reality, a continuation of the state established by the Saxons in the 6th century; however this is original research. Unless a very reliable source is provided that claims that the Acts of union are simply constitutional nonsense which in reality annexed Scotland and Ireland into the English kingdom, or similar, then you're wasting your time. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 23:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

6th century, Hengist and Horsa, or even Ida...an established state? You're having a laugh! Aethelstan was the first king of all the English in the 10th c. Now, onto the constitution, of which there is no such thing in the UK, how could you describe the Court of Session or the General Assembly (still very evidently on the go) as Saxon institutions? Brendandh (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear. No such thing as the constitution of the United Kingdom? Of course there is one... how do you think this country has been governed so stably for so many centuries? As for the Court of Session and the General Assembly... these are Scottish institutions which exist only in Scotland, ie they are not institutions of the United Kingdom. Argovian (talk) 12:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
"This country", says it all really....Which country? Would that happen to be England (with a bit of Wales thrown in) perchance? The spiritual or legal Lords of the English judiciary and church may sit in the Palace of Westminster, but they are certainly not the religious/legal omsbudsmen of the northern third of this island. "Centuries"?, s'pose 304 years could be counted as "centuries", not that 'many' and not particularly 'stable' either though! Brendandh (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
307 years, mea culpa. Brendandh (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
268 years really do not count as many centuries of being governed so stably. NebY (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I think we should add the unification of England, because it's an important event in the history of the United Kingdom. It's not necessarily constitutionally important event, but it's definitely important, as England is the largest part of the UK by far (population). If articles like Russia have informal events like the arrival of Rurik - what is definitely not a constitutional event - I don't see why we shouldn't add the unification of England as it is seriously important event for the later unification of UK. Ransewiki (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Motto[edit]

Why has the motto of the United Kingdom been removed? All other countries have a motto specified in their template. It is featured in all British passports. I suggest someone add it again. 2A01:E35:8A42:A30:FCDC:A095:C9AB:D212 (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Gordon Brown's 2007 proposal that the UK might have a national motto was dropped despite provoking some suggestions. NebY (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I thought "Dieu et mon droit" was the motto. And so it is listed on the Spanish and French wikipedia. List_of_national_mottos#U lists UK's motto as such. Maybe there is a subtlety I don't understand. 2A01:E35:8A42:A30:FCDC:A095:C9AB:D212 (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
According to whom? Please provide a source. It translates to 'God and my right' and refers to the monarchs divine right to rule the UK. It has little to do with the entire country as a whole. That said, neither does "God Save the Queen" but we use it as our anthem for some absurd reason. Rob (talk | contribs) 21:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Great unsourced motto from Serbia on that list: "God is a Serb". hmmm. DeCausa (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
"Dieu et mon droit" is the monarch's motto. It is used on passports only in the royal coat of arms; UK passports are unusual anyway in preserving an ancient concept of the passport, being requests "in the Name of Her Majesty". (Yes, there are subtleties and gotchas in plenty.) As for the Spanish and French Wikipedias and List of national mottos, that's three good examples of why it's become a truism that Wikipedia is not a reliable source! NebY (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Demographics[edit]

The sections mentions the figure of 6% for gay people. Can somebody add the figure of 1.5% (gay and bi) too, from this source http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ethnicity/measuring-sexual-identity---evaluation-report/2010/index.html 92.16.58.122 (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Why must the article refer to all white people? Should it not identify that section of the country that is indigenous, which by all intents and purposes is white British and excludes those immigrants or other non-indigenous whites such as Poles or Americans? Other articles about European peoples do this. I find this a deliberate attempt to remove the identity of the native British people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.165.169 (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

See Classification of ethnicity in the United Kingdom. We use the official statistics collected in the census, and the categories contained in that. There are no reliable figures for "native British people", whatever that may mean. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Anglo-Saxon-Celts ignoring the vast amount of other DNA that has imbued itself into the British genepool the past 2 thousand years? Mabuska (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Two thousand years ago we didn't have all those back-stabbing Anglo-Saxons running round pretending to be British. Happy days. Apart from the ale. And the loos. NebY (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2014[edit]

70.39.187.231 (talk) 03:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Mz7 (talk) 04:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I believe these blank edit requests to be nothing more than test edits, and should probably be removed on sight. --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2014[edit]

I want to add a template about left- hand traffic countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Left-_hand_traffic_countries {{Left- hand traffic countries}} Orfeasmakris (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I'd like to know the source of the information in the template before inserting it into this article. Thanks, Older and ... well older (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Article Heading[edit]

The United Kingdom of Great Britain, Scotland and Northern Ireland[edit]

There are at least three other United Kingdoms on this planet. Denmark, The Netherlands and The United Arab Emirates.
I would suggest a correction in the article heading. Darmech (talk)

No there aren't. None of those you mention are called United Kingdom either officially or as a common name, see Kingdom of Denmark, Kingdom of the Netherlands, and United Arab Emirates. There have been some other United Kingdoms that existed historically, but not now, and these are dealt with by the hatnote on the article, and, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that's all that's needed. DeCausa (talk) 06:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say they were called United Kingdoms, but that they are United Kingdoms. There is no country called The United Kingdom. Darmech (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
The UK is a single kingdom. 'United', before 'Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' is entirely irrelevant to the constitutional composition of the UK. 'United Kingdom' is simply a name the British parliament decided upon in the 18th century. That other historical states also included 'United Kingdom' in their name, is irrelevant. A 'united kingdom' is not a form of government. Rob (talk | contribs) 14:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Please understand I am suggesting that the article heading be changed to the correct title and not an informal name commonly used. In the 18th century before the joining of Ireland to the Union it was called Kingdom of Great Britain, no reference to the United title. This is an encyclopaedia and not the Sunday paper, it's not correct.Darmech (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
See WP:COMMONNAME. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Point taken -Thanks- Darmech (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Further,the Union was between Scotland and England, latterly with Ireland. If the constitution and political map changes, as may be possible in September, Scotland occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It'd be a little like calling the USA, the 'United states of North America,...and Mexico and Canada'...etc, etc Brendandh (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't you mean "The United States of Mexico"? :) --Pete (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but don't you mean the "United Mexican States"? :) (or is that some slightly strange refrence to Mexican immigration to the USA? Sincerely hope not O.o haha. --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Locator map[edit]

The locator map for this article shows two entities: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Whilst I know what it's meant to show, it has the potential to confuse. Isn't there a more accurate map the article can use? If nobody can suggest one, then I will create a new one for the purpose. Bazza (talk) 08:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

If we want to show the UK in more detail, we could consider adding a zoom insert to EU-United Kingdom.svg similar to the map at England's article. However a separate map with place names is just an unnecessary waste of space. Rob (talk | contribs) 10:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I do not really mind which map we have, but can we just locate the subject once. The infobox is massive enough as it is.--SabreBD (talk) 10:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Government Type[edit]

I have removed "with devolved legislatures" from the government type in the sidebar "unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy". It appears as if somebody has looked at the government type classification of a federal nation like the United States or Australia and thought to add this in, despite having no understanding of constitutional law. The devolved legislatures are constitutionally equivalent to local governments. This would be like classifying Australia as a "constitutional federal parliamentary democracy with local governments"!!! The devolved legislatures exist solely by virtue of statutes and could be repealed tomorrow if they government so decided. They are far from the equivalent of states in a federal system eg in the US, Australia or Canada, where the states pre-existed the federal union whose powers are derived from those of the states. In such systems, the states are constitutionally entrenched and may not be abolished by the federal government, which merely holds the residual powers not exercised by the states. As such, this federal nature (the states) are fundamental to such systems of government. In the UK, devolved legislatures are a totally different animal created by statute which are not fundamental to the type of government. Indeed there are hundreds of other descriptors you could choose to add which like "with devolved legislatures" describe a present reality in the UK but are not fundamental to its system of government.--Saruman-the-white (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

True, but the devolved national legislatures have far more authority than ordinary municipal governments and under international law may have a right to self-determination, unlike almost all provinces and states of the U.S., Canada and Australia. Not that I disagree with removing the information about devolution, but would like to hear other comments. Incidentally, the powers of the Canadian and federal governments were not derived from the states but ironically from UK statutes which could have theoretically been repealed. TFD (talk) 04:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the removal for the reason given. However, I think it could be reinstated, on the ground of consistency, if there are equivalent examples (I.e. with similarly extensive devolution of authority) in other non-federal country articles. DeCausa (talk) 05:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Spain might be broadly comparable - it has autonomous regions but is described on WP as "Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy". On the other hand, this info-box item is government, not constitution, and it seems a little odd to describe it in the same terms that we would have used before devolution. NebY (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I disagree that it is strange to describe it in the same terms as before devolution. With devolution, nothing about the system of government fundamentally changed. The Westminster Parliament merely devolved some of its powers, which it has done infinite times through history, whether it be to statutory govt entities, tribunals, local govts, London authority, blah blah blah. We are describing here in a few words the fundamental characteristics of this system of government. Devolved legislatures is not central to the UK form of government. It is an important policy which has been implemented within the unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy system of government. Similarly, we could add "with fixed-term elections" or "with universal suffrage" or "with bi-cameral legislature" or some other quite important policy, but these are not absolutely vital to a characterisation of the fundamentals of the system of government (indeed devolved legislatures is less important than some of these).--Saruman-the-white (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Saruman. Additionally, only 20% of the population falls under these devolved legislatures. They have little affect on the majority of the country and are definitely not fundamental to its system of government. Rob (talk | contribs) 09:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
...these are not absolutely vital to a characterisation of the fundamentals of the system of government... Ummm ... yes, they are. Without altering the UK's constitution (uncodified as it is), the Westminster Parliament (including its Government) have no powers in devolved matters. So, say, anything to do with justice in Scotland, the Westminister Parliament has no competency in (i.e. no power).
In all cases, the Westminster Parliament has reserved control over the Constitution. So, it can at any time change the Constitution and roll back on devolution (in Scotland and Wales, anyway). But, a fundamental characteristic of the UK system of government is that the UK government has no power over, say, justice in Scotland — or any other matter that is wholly devolved. --Tóraí (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Does the UK government have the power to change the bin collection day in the London Borough of Wandsworth? The difference of course is (a) the extent/importance of the matters devolved (b) the political practicality of rolling back those powers. But neither change the fundamental constitutional principle. But to put the other side of the argument, I saw some legal academic in a Newspaper column (can't remember who) posit that it was "now" a convention (an element of the constitution of course) that rolling back devolved powers requires a referendum and are therefore entrenched. The trouble with an emerging convention in a not-wholly-written constitution is you don't really know when and if it's a convention and when it's an argument that there should be a convention. DeCausa (talk) 06:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Does the UK [parliament] have the power to change the bin collection day in the London Borough of Wandsworth? Yes. In contrast, it does not have the same power for a borough of Edinburgh. (At least not without constitutional change first.) --Tóraí (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
The 'Countries', I think you mean. And just you see if there's ever an attempt to disassemble Holyrood, Scottish sovereignty resides with its people, unlike England, Magna Carta notwithstanding

. Brendandh (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The UK also differs from the rest of the world in having an "unwritten constitution." Hence in the same sub-box, the monarch is decided by statute while the prime mninister's office merely exists by precedence. TFD (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The devolved legislatures are constitutionally equivalent to local governments. ... The devolved legislatures exist solely by virtue of statutes and could be repealed tomorrow if they government so decided. At least in Northern Ireland, devolution is dependent upon an international treaty. It cannot be simply repealed by Parliament. As regards devolution in Scotland and Wales, Parliament could abolish the monarchy, if it wanted to. For now, both the monarchy and devolution are intrinsic parts of the UK's constitutional make up. --Tóraí (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Given that the parliament serves out its term at the pleasure of the monarch, and that all bills are passed by the monarch, this is doubtful. Indeed, it is convention for the monarch to pass bills on the advice of the Prime Minister, but if presented with a bill to abolish the monarchy, what would occur is unknown. It would probably lead to a constitutional crisis like the one that happened in Australia in 1975 or in Canada in 1926. Rob also makes a good point that only 20% of the population live under these devolved legislatures. I don't see that they are any more fundamental to the system of government than are local governments or, for example, the Greater London Authority (indeed, 100% of the population live under local govts).--Saruman-the-white (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Since the Queen is part of parliament as Queen-in-Parliament, your point is moot. Parliament can abolish the monarchy just as it passed His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936. OTOH parliament cannot restore powers it has ceded, whether through treaties or grants of independence to former colonies. TFD (talk) 00:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Why can't the government restore devolved powers? Why can't they simply repeal the acts which devolved powers and cease the British–Irish Agreement? Rob (talk | contribs) 10:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

This is all getting a bit overanalytical and academic about a fairly simple presentational point. And does it matter that the devolved powers could, theoretically, be revoked or that they might or might not have the same status and powers as sub-national bodies in other countries? The fact is that devolved legislatures do, currently, exist for three of the four constituent countries that make up the UK, which are each described as having "governments" of their own in that respect (and however precisely one analyses their powers, they are also very much more than simply variations on the idea of local authorities). The brief reference was useful information that was fairly concisely expressed. I'm not saying mention of devolution simply has to be there but nor do I see that it simply has to removed either. N-HH talk/edits 15:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
3 out of 4 of the UK's constituent countries... 16% of it's population. The London Assembly covers 13% of the UK's population. Like Saruman has said, there are more significant characteristics then these legislatures. I actually think whether the UK government has full sovereignty over these regions is important, and no one has given any evidence that the government doesn't. Rob (talk | contribs) 20:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that population proportions or Westminster's ultimate sovereignty have much to do with this. The infobox entry is there to describe the system of government in place in UK and its most notable recorded characteristics. The fact that there are devolved national administrations and legislatures seems to be, prima facie, worth mentioning briefly, regardless of more theoretical and abstract arguments about the precise constitutional relationship. There's certainly no cast-iron argument in favour of suddenly and unilaterally removing the mention of it that has been there for a while now. N-HH talk/edits 21:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
ps: looking at actual sources, it's not hard to see that much academic treatment, unsurprisingly, sees devolution as a significant development in defining the UK system and that the "unitary" nature of the UK has been at the very least qualified by the reality of devolution. That seems a pretty good basis for retaining the qualification here too, regardless of any theorising any of us might do. N-HH talk/edits 09:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure about this. If you look at Spain, which also has a number of quite heavily devolved governments within its boundaries, these are not mentioned in the main national infobox, despite the existence of the Basque Parliament, etc. The scope of UK devolution appears to still be a work in progress and particularly with the rapidly looming Scottish independence vote, we should probably avoid giving any dubious or incompletely factual assertions in the infobox for the main national article which might tend to mislead. It's worth noting in passing that Article 28.7 of the crucial Scotland Act 1998 appears to in no way diminish UK Parliamentary control over Scotland, despite devolution, for example. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesinderbyshire (talkcontribs) 18:21, 28 June 2014

The current description already seems excessive. However, all the current elements describe exclusive parts of the government. Take out unitary and there is no description of how power is distibuted. Remove parliamentary and there is no description of system of govenment and remove constitutional monarchy and the type of head of state is excluded. Devolved legislatures is a subsidiary element of a unitary state (in fact they are mentioned in the lead of the article on the subject) therefore including them is just adding unnecessary detail to an already crowded element. Eckerslike (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the entry is a little cluttered. I guess we're also up against the problem that infoboxes are the worst places to set in stone often-complex and subjective ideas. The problem with simply stating "unitary" without any reference to devolution, as noted, is that the description is starting to be qualified and even disputed – in direct observation by sources, regardless of our own interpretations (which of course don't count for much at the end of the day). It might be better just to stick to the two most commonly found and uncontroversial descriptors, "parliamentary democracy" and "constitutional monarchy". I'm not sure we lose too much by losing "unitary" – the sovereignty of parliament in the distribution of power is arguably implicit in the mention of the former. N-HH talk/edits 09:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
It's interesting to compare with the opening paragraph on United Kingdom (Government and Society) from Britannica Online for example: The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy. The country’s head of state is the reigning king or queen, and the head of government is the prime minister, who is the leader of the majority political party in the House of Commons. [2] Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
That's how the narrative text in lead here does it too. The problem with "unitary" is that it can be seen as carrying quite a precise technical meaning but is also a relative term whose application is open to interpretation. Anyway, I'm not too fussed about all this - I just thought the original rationale cited for the unliateral removal of any mention of devolution was a bit weak and that the issue was not that clear-cut. The clutter/excessive description problem seems more relevant as a justification; although in turn it suggests to me that, now we've started, we might get away with trimming the entry a bit further still. N-HH talk/edits 12:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Although my intention was not to advocate trimming back. The unitary element was the element that I thought could most easily removed without loss of information as the majority of readers will not be aware of its exact meaning. Also, although it is theoretically possible to have a federated constitutional monarchy, it is difficult to think how such a beast would come to pass. The whole point of monarchies is that power passes through a single institution. Eckerslike (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Australia and Canada have a federal structure and are also monarchies. So too Malaysia and UAE, but in a different way. DeCausa (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
There's no reason to remove unitary. Powers have been devolved not transferred. The legislations which created the devolved legislatures carefully reserved power to the UK Parliament to legislate in all matters. Rob (talk | contribs) 15:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Your personal analysis is very interesting, but neither definitive, funnily enough, nor what matters here, as I already pointed out in comments that were very far from being "nonsense". As I also said I really don't care that much one way or the other, not least because there is no great "truth" as to the unitary-ness or otherwise of the UK or any objectively "correct" presentational option here: authoritative sources can be found that qualify or dispute the "unitary" description, post-devolution (just as, yes, there are many, possibly even the majority, that would affirm it), while the one thing we do have a choice about is what information or description to include or not, given that and given that there are more universally accepted and arguably pertinent terms, in the small space available. N-HH talk/edits 22:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
At the end of the day, 'unitary' just doesn't appear in sources and is not a common usage to boot. It isn't accurate, the UK is not yet some sort of semi-federalised or unified but widely devolved entity in the complete sense, it remains what it is, a constitutional parliamentary democracy. The word should come out. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see this being re-inserted. Would the supporters of 'unitary' please state their sources for usage of the term, or else explain why it is common. If nothing convincing is forthcoming, I propose that it be deleted again. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Huh? It's a bog standard constitutional description of the UK per [3] even though you'll find the odd rogue source in there saying it's not so post devolution . DeCausa (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I think many people here are lacking in their knowledge of constitutional law. Either a state is federal (eg Australia, US, Canada, where a number of formerly sovereign states agreed to create a federal government which would take over some of their powers which the states could agree upon (eg defence, foreign affairs). Alternatively, the regions/provinces/municipalities whatever the local nomenclature is derive their powers from the central government. The powers of these devolved legislatures (doesn't matter even if the central govt devolves almost ALL its powers to them) derive from the central government. It has passed legislation devolving some of its powers. As such, they derive their powers from the centre which is the precise definition of a unitary state -- a very clear, important concept. Doesn't matter how many of their powers they decide to devolve to whatever regional divisions. The powers of these divisions/counties/provinces/whatever they may be called derives from the centre. In a federal system, which is the other characterisation, the powers of the central or federal government derive from the states(doesn't matter how broad these powers may be, they could include only defence or the states could hand over much more including eg health and education). That is to say, the states created the centre and gave it some of their powers. Even if the Westminster Parliament devolved 99% of its powers to the devolved legislatures, the fact remains that the UK is fundamentally, unequivocally a unitary state where the powers of the "devolved legislatures" derive from the centreand this will always be the case. It is a defining characteristic of your unique system. --Saruman-the-white (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

As already pointed out the debate is not about whether the UK really is, in some way, objectively a unitary state, especially not by basing such arguments on the deployment of own – supposedly superior or otherwise – "knowledge of constitutional law", but about deciding how best to simply and briefly summarise the UK's government type in an infobox entry, based directly on the descriptions that are most frequently and uncontroversially found in sources. The unitary description is clearly contested or at least qualified – and not simply by "rogue source[s]". N-HH talk/edits 20:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
The info-box is for non-controversial simple information. Whether or not they are correct, some scholars claim that devolution has affected the unitary nature of the UK. Furthermore, the UK has always been an anomaly, because it combined three separate states with a common king and parliament, yet separate judicial systems, and separate sections of the executive for each country. AFAIK, the only other country to do that was the Province of Canada (1841-1867). TFD (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary use of collapsible list[edit]

WareMiekal, can you explain the point in using a collapsible list to reduce the infobox by a single line? The inconvenience caused is worth one additional line in my opinion. Please familiarise yourself with WP:BRD also. Rob (talk | contribs) 15:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


You obviously haven't looked at the content I have added

.uk .london .wales .cymru .eu

to the "Internet TLD" section. If it's just the collapsible lists you don't like, why do you keep removing the information? The internet TLD's I have added are relevant to the page. WareMiekal (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you commented out the introduction. Anyhow, I don't think those domains are that relevant, although I'm not set either way. The collapsible list is definitely not necessary though (they will fit vertically on two lines). Rob (talk | contribs) 16:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not too fussed about the collapsible list, but I do think the internet TLD's are relevant and should be there. WareMiekal (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Top Level Domain for the UK is .wales? .london? .eu? .cyrmu? As listed here its .uk therre is also .gb reserved nd unused this could be mentioned butthe others are not tlds for the UK. Murry1975 (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Country?[edit]

The second line of the article states: "The country includes the island of Great Britain...." Is the UK (as a whole) not just a state that has four countries within it? Kei_Jo (Talk to me baby! :þ) 14:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

"Country" has many meanings and usages, varying across different periods and places and still varying with context and speaker/writer for any particular time and place, resulting in apparent paradoxes of this sort. It is quite normal to refer to the UK as a country and to refer to some of its constituents as countries too. Some editors would prefer one or the other usage, but despite much discussion the only consensus we have reached or - realistically speaking - are likely to reach within our lifetimes has been to accept a variety of usages and to document this as the very first of the FAQs above, and the third, and the fourth.... NebY (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2014[edit]

change official language to english and welsh. both have official stauts and are the only languages teh drivign test can be done in. 2.101.124.113 (talk) 00:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, AFAIK Gaelic is also an official language in Scotland, but we need actual official sources - not what you can take your driving test in (you could choose 19 languages for your test until April 2014). - Arjayay (talk) 07:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)