Talk:United Kingdom

London is not any longer the biggest financial market place

This should be updated as it is (rather for a while) outdated, e.g. source. Suggested edit: "London, one of the biggest financial marketplaces in the world. (maybe: second only to Hong Kong)."

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.27.173 (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Change template in Demography section

I propose the template in the Demography section be changed to the below one because it gives a better idea of where the most urbanized parts of the UK are.

Largest urban areas of the United Kingdom (England and Wales: 2011 census built-up area; Scotland: 2016 estimates settlement; Northern Ireland: 2001 census urban area)
Rank	Urban area	Pop.	Principal settlement	Rank	Urban area	Pop.	Principal settlement
1	Greater London	9,787,426	London	11	Bristol	617,280	Bristol
2	Greater Manchester	2,553,379	Manchester	12	Edinburgh	512,150	Edinburgh
3	West Midlands	2,440,986	Birmingham	13	Leicester	508,916	Leicester
4	West Yorkshire	1,777,934	Leeds	14	Belfast	483,418	Belfast
5	Greater Glasgow	985,290	Glasgow	15	Brighton & Hove	474,485	Brighton
6	Liverpool	864,122	Liverpool	16	South East Dorset	466,266	Bournemouth
7	South Hampshire	855,569	Southampton	17	Cardiff	390,214	Cardiff
8	Tyneside	774,891	Newcastle upon Tyne	18	Teesside	376,633	Middlesbrough
9	Nottingham	729,977	Nottingham	19	Stoke-on-Trent	372,775	Stoke-on-Trent
10	Sheffield	685,368	Sheffield	20	Coventry	359,262	Coventry

Eopsid (talk) 12:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd support, if the bolding was eliminated. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The bolding of what particular bits? Eopsid (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Urban area names. As they're so long, bolding is unnattractive. However, since it's a coding result, what if we piplelinked "Urban Area" in each name? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

But some such as the West Yorkshire Urban Area and the West Midlands Urban Area have the first part of their name refer to counties and without the Urban Area bit could lead to some confusion. The same is true for the Greater London Urban Area but that would be a good thing for the others. Perhaps renaming the West Yorkshire and West Midlands Urban Areas in the table after the two largest towns/cities within the Urban Area would be a good idea and then pipelinking would be a good idea? Eopsid (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think due to the title it's clear it's the urban area being discussed and not just a city. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

A question about where the figures have come from: it does say '2001 Census' but yet the figure given for Greater Glasgow is different from the figure from the Greater Glasgow article which is also from 2001 Census. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Just checked the source you are right the figure in the Greater Glasgow article is the correct one. The figure for Edinburgh is also wrong. I have changed the template accordingly. Eopsid (talk) 12:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

No one has expressed opposition to this change so i will go ahead with it. Eopsid (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Economy section is having the effect of fuddling/fixing UK economic figures

The article on Germany has clear figures that stick to GDP, in this article's economic overview section we go from percentages, to fractions (how can readers easily compare with these figures, this just bogs down easy comparison and good reading comprehension) Then we go from fractions to GVA instead of GDP which is, according to the article:

GVA + taxes on products - subsidies on products = GDP

This has the effect of fixing the creative market figures to look better than they are. 6% GVA is irrelevant when considered in terms of GDP and looking for an overview.--Manboobies (talk) 08:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

UK is a Christian country

UK is a Christian country. This should be worked into the article? [1] 117.198.57.111 (talk) 10:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thankfully David Cameron is not a reliable source in this case (or many others for that matter). You need something with more authority --Snowded ^TALK 10:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

More authority than the recent "Victor of Europe", Supreme Etonian and embodied PR machine that is D Cameron Esq?? Impossible! Treating the issue seriously though, we do have something in the Religion section about the C of E being the Established church in England and about the Protestant and Presbyterian oath of the Monarch; there could perhaps be slightly more in that section about the religious situations in Wales and Scotland and also a little more on the non-Christian religious proportions perhaps. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we had that and then took it out after much debate. I will try to dig the discussion out from the archives.--SabreBD (talk) 14:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Its here: Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 25#Religion--SabreBD (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

One, perhaps offhand statement of a Prime minister is not really notable to be in the main article, perhaps it's suitable for the article on David Cameron or Religion in the UK? And how can you put any real stock on that comment is beyond me. How do you define it. It's weird. (and I agree with Snowded, weirdly, I would trust the words of the Archbishop or his Catholic equivalent more so) --Nutthida (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 December 2011

Re the below: In fact, Cornish was extinct from the late seventh through late twentieth centuries, but it has been revived and is once again a living language. Although the terms "endangered" and "extinct" are used in a linguistic context, languages that are recorded do not become extinct in the way that species become extinct. An extinct species cannot be revived; but a language that has been sufficiently recorded, in print or/and audio format, can. It won't be the same language that it used to be, but that is true of any language. Even Latin undergoes minor changes through its continued use by a small group of enthusiasts in the "computatora" age. 76.126.3.38 (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The article on the Cornish language seems to completely disagree with you it states that cornish may have died out for a brief period in the twentieth century before attempts where made to revive it. Actually from the article it seems it never became extinct, attempts to revive it began in 1904 but in 1914 there were still some elderly speakers of the language this implies it was never extinct.Eopsid (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I note that some of those assertions are unsourced in the article you refer to. From what I've read on the subject, there is at least an element of wishful thinking going on in the continuist theory; most of those making such claims are either ardent nationalists or proponents of the language's revival. That's not to say it isn't true at all, but the article could do with being a bit more objective. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Your article incorrectly states Cornish is a current language of the United Kingdom. Cornish died out over a century ago. If you are going to include Cornish, then you must also include Manx.

89.72.8.24 (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe Manx is only used in the Isle of Mann which, as I assume you know, is not part of the United Kingdom. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It places Cornish within the list of "Recognised Regional Languages" of the UK and an explanatory note showing sources. Sadly, Manx does not qualify as one of those. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

From direct.gov.uk:

Since 2002, Cornish has been recognised as a minority language by the UK government, under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.

(As per James and Fishie, the Isle of Mann is not part of the United Kingdom.) --RA (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

UK Not really a unitary state

The article states the United Kingdom is a unitary state, which is not really true. "Semi-federal" would be a better description because the country displays characteristics of both unitary and federal states.

In a true unitary state, the provincial and local government authorities are fully subordinate to the national government, whose authority is undivided. That is not the case in the United Kingdom, just as it was not the case in the Kingdom of Great Britain.

Under the terms of the Acts of Union of 1707, Scotland continued - and continues - to maintain its own systems of law, education and a few other things separately from the rest of the country. Even with the new British Supreme Court, criminal cases cannot be appealed beyond Scotland (though civil cases can) because the terms of 1707 Acts (which are constitutional acts) have not been changed to accommodate the Supreme Court's creation. I speak of sovereign powers retained by Scotland as a "sister province" (or "sister state"), which has been in perpetual quasi-confederation with England since 1707, not of the additional devolved powers settled upon Scotland with the recent creation of the Parliament of Scotland/Parlamaid na h-Alba. If the British Parliament permanently dissolved the Scottish Parliament tomorrow, Scotland would still retain exclusive jurisdiction over her own systems of law, education, and other matters reserved to her under the Acts of Union of 1707.

But while the UK does not behave like a true unitary state, it also does not behave like a true federal state. In true federalism, such as what one sees in Australia, Canada and the United States, there is a sovereign federal state that is coextensive with the sovereign unitary states which constitute it by their perpetual confederation. Both the federal state and the constituent unitary states (called "provinces" in Canada) are sovereign entities - thus, federal nationas are express the principle of 'dual' or 'parallel' sovereignty - with the actual exercise of sovereignty divided between the two entity forms, often with one of the entities actually or effectively designated a basic unit of government for residual purposes. In the United States, this unit is the individual state - that is, per US Const., Amend. X, all powers that are not explicitly or implicitly assigned to the federal government by the US Constitution are reserved to the states. In Canada, the Canadian Constitution effectively provides the opposite, so that those powers not explicitly or implicitly assigned to the provincial states are reserved to the federal state.

The United Kingdom operates between the two concepts - sometimes as a federal state, as with the legal system, in which England and Wales are one judicial province; Scotland another; and Northern Ireland a third. Thus, when Parliament decriminalised male homosexuality in 1967, only England and Wales were affected. Male homosexuality remained illegal in Scotland until a separate act of parliament was passed and took effect in 1980; and it was not until 1982 that a third act of parliament legalised male homosexuality in Northern Ireland. And sometimes the United Kingdom behaves like a unitary state.

So, I would say the most accurate description of the United Kingdom is neither "unitary state" nor "federal state" but "semi-federal state". 76.126.3.38 (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem with your argument -- as well-reasoned as it might be -- is that you are putting forth a hypothesis without citations. In the vast majority of atlases and almanacs I've seen, the "United Kingdom", is listed as a country, but England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are not. If you want to support your hypothesis, you need solid citations showing that, for instance, each of these states has their own defense departments whose members swear oaths to those states, rather than to the UK. And what about citizenship? Do immigrants to Scotland who seek citizenship swear oaths to the UK, or to Scotland? Do each of these states have independent customs departments that citizens of other UK states must satisfy? Are the English forced to apply for a visa to work in Northern Ireland? What does it say on Welsh passports? Who represents these states in the United Nations? Hellbound Hound (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hellbound Hound hound you are confusing "state" with "country". It is well established that England, Scotland and Wales are countries, the evidence on Northern Ireland is more mixed, And to our IP, the UK is a bit of a mess historically if you like nice clean structures. It has three legal systems, but they all end up at the Queen, Parliament has delegated other powers to the Assemblies but that does not mean the UK is not a state, You need authorities if you are going to maintain that argument --Snowded ^TALK 04:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I may have my terms mixed up. I was trying to find a word to describe England, Scotland, Wales and N.I. I believe the argument here is whether these "territories" constitute what is commonly known as countries. If it is true that England, Scotland and Wales are "well established" as countries, then why do so many atlases and almanacs not list them as such? Why do they not have their own representitives at the UN? I'm not saying you're wrong, only that there needs to be some explanation for these discrepencies.Hellbound Hound (talk) 05:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The IP writes "In a true unitary state, the provincial and local government authorities are fully subordinate to the national government, whose authority is undivided. That is not the case in the United Kingdom..." Well, actually yes it is. Parliament at Westminster could abolish not only all local authorities but, in theory anyway, the devolved assemblies. Westminster set them up and Westminster could close them down (as it has in the past, in respect of the Northern Ireland Assembly). When Enoch Powell said "power devolved is power retained" he was trying to illustrate this difference between devolution and federation. The US Congress would not be allowed by the Constitution to abolish the state of Texas. It is possible to describe the UK in its present state as a de facto, asymmetrical, quasi-federal set-up but, unless and until it becomes a proper federation (which would require a written constitution to stipulate which powers lay with which bodies), it remains a unitary state. -- Alarics (talk) 09:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Y Gododdin

I've reverted again, as I have found no reliable sources saying Y Gododdin was composed in what is now lowland Scotland; they state the language, Old Welsh, rather than the location. We don't know if it were composed in the lands of the Gododdin, Rheged, the Kingdom of Strathclyde, Elmet or somewhere else. Even if they did, parts of the lands of the Gododdin, Strathclyde, and Rheged, and all of Elmet, are in what is now England. If we are to state the location of it's composition, the only safe location to state would be Yr Hen Ogledd; even that is WP:SYN. Best just to state “Old Welsh” (language) per sources. Can we agree something here, rather than using edit summaries? Daicaregos (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a fair point. I'm happy to stick with the Old North. garik (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The best we can say is that it may have been composed there. It can only ever be a theory and is largely based on the subject matter. It doesn't seem worth getting into the arguments in detail here.--SabreBD (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Reversion of addition of 'Significant' to lead

My addition of the word 'significant' to the start of the sentence 'British influence can still be observed in the language, culture and legal systems of many of its former territories.' at the end of the second paragraph of the lead been reverted by Chipmunkdavis.

Although I can conceive of valid reasons for such a reversion, 'Word doesn't add any information' is not an acceptable or coherent one.

My reason for the addition is two-fold. Firstly it is factually correct and both highly relevant and of likely interest to readers. Secondly, many countries/polities/peoples can be validly said to have had an influence on the 'language, culture and legal systems' of many of the former territories of the British Empire, not least the Romans, Greeks, French and Germans. The addition of the word 'significant' is needed to clarify why this is a relevant and lead-worthy sentence in this article.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The word significant is just as meaningless or meaningful as the word influence is, adding it doesn't suddenly make the term more meaningful and notable. It has the same amount of clarification for the reader.

I am limited by the space of the edit summary box, so I apologies if the partial sentence wasn't totally understandable. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

What you mean, I think, is that the word 'significant' is not precisely quantifiable. That is very different to saying that it conveys no information. The great majority of human affairs, and of subjects which are addressed in Wikipedia, are incapable of a reduction to numerical quantification.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I feel that its lack of quantification means that using it as an adjective without elaboration coveys no additional information. If I read that the UK had significant influence on something with no further elaboration, I'll come away with the same impression if the word significant is absent. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The English language has adjectives for a reason; they convey information. Would 'Minimal British influence can still be observed in the language, culture and legal systems of many of its former territories.' mean the same to you as well?Rangoon11 (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

No, because when read alone influence is implicitly assumed to be something notable. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Why? And why not make it explict and less ambiguous? Rangoon11 (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Just by saying something has influence notability is shown, otherwise it wouldn't be mentioned. Adjectives are most useful in comparison, something not done here. Including one would almost be a redundancy which is not the best of prose and also draws close to being peacocky. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The aim of the article is to describe the subject as clearly and accurately as possible for readers. The addition of the word 'significant' would in my view assist that, by providing clarification on a highly significant point, at the expense of a single additional word, and with no diminution of the elegance or conciseness of the prose. It appears that we will have to agree to differ on the point, and wait to see if any other editors have an opinion. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

In Wikipedia's description of Weasel words, the very first category is "Numerically vague expressions". I would suggest that "significant" is a perfect fit. HiLo48 (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

That is a WP article in mainspace and completely irrelevant. What would be of more relevance is the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch guideline, although I see nothing in it which precludes the use of the word 'significant' here. The word significant clearly imparts and plainly summarises verifiable information. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You may think so and you may be right for the way you want to use it here, but surely you realise that the word is also badly misused at times. It's NOT quantifiable, and speakers and writers wanting to colour a description will often use the word when it has no particular meaning at all, just for emphasis, when it's simply not justified. Most times they won't be called on it, but here it matters. Can't you find a better word? HiLo48 (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"Significant" adds nothing of value in this particular sentence. "Influence" on its own can be inferred to be significant without saying so, otherwise it would not be mentioned. In the interests of concision, I therefore favour leaving out the word "significant". -- Alarics (talk) 08:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Nominal GDP ranking

Following Missionary's edit which changed the nominal GDP ranking for the United Kingdom from sixth to seventh based on preliminary figures from the IMF for 2011 I must reaffirm the consensus for GDP figures on Wikipedia has always been that they are derived from the last publication of such figures from the IMF, World Bank and CIA. The last publication of these figures by the IMF, World Bank and CIA were for 2010 and these figures, and any rankings, should be updated as and when the IMF, World Bank and CIA publish their figures for 2011. They should not be based upon speculative figures as this would make the article a crystall ball on the matter. Quite vivid blur (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 January 2012

I think it would be good if you added Duran Duran to the music section as they are a well known successful British band with over 100 million record sales and known worldwide also.

96.19.208.165 (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — Abhishek  ^Talk 12:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

There is an error under 5.1: Science and Technology.

"Between 2004 and 2008 the UK produced 7% of the world's scientific research papers and had an 8% share of scientific citations, the third and second highest in the world (after the United States and China, and the United States, respectively)."

The Shadow 277 17:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It makes sense to me. What do you think is the error?--SabreBD (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It would perhaps be clearer without the brackets, and with dashes immediately after 'third' and 'second'.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Oops! Noob Move. I saw the double "United States" in the brackets, and immediately thought was an error. I really should pay more attention. Oh well. I'm still geting used to wikipedia. The Shadow 277 01:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)