Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom

The whole article is bonkers - let's delete this page

The only people who are pushing for this nonsense article to have credence are those who live in the poor relative regions of the UK, namely: Scotland (Fishiefriend2 Mr West for example), Wales and Northern Ireland.

The Countries of the United Kingdom do not have any soverieign rights, excepting for the degree of devolution normally afforded to regions, do not issue passports, nor are they recognised as countries by the United Nations. The term is, therefore, considered only as an historic convention of nomenclature.

Historically, Scotland absorbed the Kingdom of England when James VI of Scotland became James I of England. Wales was never a country; Northern Ireland is only a made up place. There is only one country recognised by the rest of the world: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Yes, I have read the rest of this page. In my mind anything written contrary to the facts constitutes original research ... and at that, a work of fiction.

I move that this page be deleted. Francis Hannaway 16:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francish7 (talk • contribs)

Multiple sources indicate a different picture. The position is complex - hence the need for an encyclopaedia article to explain it. The article explains that the four countries do not have sovereign rights, but are still countries, particularly within the meaning of that word in British English, and are not "regions". Please do not cast aspersions on the motives of other editors with whom you may disagree, and please remember to sign your posts using four tildes: ~ Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't said any single editor is bonkers (yet), but that the whole article is bonkers. There is no such thing in British English as calling the province of Northern Ireland a country, or the principality of Wales a country.

... and I do sign my writing ... but it doesn't work :( Francis Hannaway 17:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The article should be moved to Constituent countries of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Seemingly, constituent often is employed with reference to history; and IMHO it is not clear that you could describe Wales, and especially Northen Ireland, as historical entities out of which the UK was formed. JoergenB (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The claim that "There is no such thing in British English as calling the province of Northern Ireland a country, or the principality of Wales a country." is peculiar. I've spent most of my life in Wales, Scotland, or England, and I've heard the term used for both frequently, particularly for Wales. I should also note two misconceptions in what you say, one explicit and the other implicit: First, Wales is not a principality (see the article Principality of Wales). Second, principality and country are not mutually exclusive terms. Nor are province and country. Finally, how are you signing your posts, Francis? All you have to do is type in four tildes (~~~~), with no spaces between them. garik (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, there may be an argument that province and country are mutually exclusive. Principality and country, however, clearly are not. garik (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Article origins / develop beyond those origins?

While I do not believe that the article is completely bonkers, there are issues with the article, including its premise. One thing many of us know, but which I hope I can say without igniting a war, is that the article was created as a coatrack. It was created during the heated discussions/mediation over how to introduce the articles on England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It's purpose then was to galvanise the formulation that, "XXX is a country that is part of the United Kingdom" (see here).

As I said, I don't think the article is completely bonkers, the topic is notable (and probably of interest to many). However, the origins of the article do not make for good (or very neutral) treatment. If tensions have eased around these issues, we may have an opportunity to rethink the article and introduce other voices. Including those that give historical perspective and those that may say that individual parts of the UK are not countries? --RA (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that, while this may be of intense interest to a few editors - who will no doubt be stirred by any suggestion of changing what is at least a relatively stable article - it is really not of that much interest to many readers. It would be a shame to divert increasingly scarce editing resources towards the reopening of old arguments here. It isn't a great article, but that doesn't really matter very much because it isn't a very important article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Ghmyrtle. I think RA's suggestions would involve diversions into a discussion of what "country" means and how the UK was formed. Both subjects are better treated in other articles, and the first in particular would quickly get tiresome. garik (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle, it's not an entirely obscure article. 24,142 people viewed this article last month. (See visitor traffic to Countries of the United Kingdom during December 2011.). But, I agree, unless tensions have eased, it's not worth it.

@garik, the kinds of diversions I mean would certainly not involve discussions around "what is a country". The kinds of diversions I would have in mind are:

Where are the countries of the United Kingdom? Do they have a geography? Tell me something about them. Do they have they a history? Were any of these places formerly "countries" as readers would normally understand the word? If so, how did they come together to form the United Kingdom? Is there any particular nomenclature I should be aware of? Maybe related to their history? They all have they same laws, yes? No? The same legal system, though? No? Well, then I expect criminal suspects need to be extradited between these countries, yes? No? Well if they have all have different laws, and jurisdictions, then there can't have been one parliament for them all. There was? What is the current political relationship between these countries? Are there any "former countries of the United Kingdom"? Are there any "current countries of the United Kingdom" in which is serious discussions about becoming a "former countries of the United Kingdom"? Are there any of these "countries" that is part of another "country" aside from the UK? What do the people of these countries have in common? What do they have that's different? What is the relationship between identity and nationality between each of the countries and the UK as a whole? Are they any identities that some of these countries share but which are not common among them all? etc.

Obviously, this takes in many things mentioned already in History of the formation of the United Kingdom and Devolution in the United Kingdom as well as other articles. However, that is simply the nature of the topic. There is no need to go into as much detail in this article as on those articles. The article touches on many of these questions already but skims over most of them and spends large portions laboring over others. It's an article where the balance is off: inordinate time is spent on some points, others are skipped over, it is cryptic about why some points are stressed so heavily, and leaves more questions hanging than it answers. --RA (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm somewhat convinced, RA. If you fancy making a start, perhaps temporarily on a subpage of this one, I'd be in support. garik (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

My view is that virtually all of the topics that RA suggests should be handled here should be addressed in the articles of each individual country, and/or the articles about the history and constitution of the UK. They should most definitely not be duplicated or interpreted in this article. Unnecessary duplication of material between articles virtually guarantees inconsistency and argument. This article should provide a brief explanation of the terminology of "country" as it is used within the UK, and provide a lot of links to other articles - but very little else. I don't believe there's any evidence that "tensions have eased" - editors may well have got bored or moved elsewhere, but reopening this article is a guaranteed way of stirring up old tensions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

I've removed this sentence from the end of the opening paragraph: "Additionally, England and Scotland are referred to as kingdoms, Northern Ireland is referred to as a province or region, and Wales as a principality." Apart from the fact that, in my view, it is unnecessary to this article, and likely to create even more confusion than usual in the minds of those who are not fully aware of the UK's complex constitutional development, it also does not summarise any of the text in the article itself - which is what an introductory paragraph is supposed to do - and is unreferenced. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Nor is constituent countries or home nations mentioned later in the text, except in links of various kinds.

It is quite common to give synonyms in the opening paragraph(s), although these are not referred to later in the article. Hence, IMHO, the text you removed was adequate, and the article would be improved by putting it back. (However, I'm not going to make an issue out of this.) JoergenB (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

NI is a "Province"

The official description of Northern Ireland per the ISO is "province". You can see exactly what I am referring to here. I became aware from Talk: Wales where recently there was a discussion on whether Wales was a country. An editor referred to this ISO publication as a strong source for the contention that Wales is a country. I suppose that surely the upshot is also that it is a strong source for the contention that Northern Ireland is more properly described as a "Province" than as a "country". Finally, I would add that I am familiar with the province of Ulster etc and no one need point out that part of it is not in NI etc. I think the article needs to be revised to refelect this ISO source. How should we do so? 86.45.54.230 (talk) 12:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If Northren Ireland is a "province" of the United Kingdom then how could it be possible for Scotland and England to be "countries" ? That would imply that Northern Ireland is a part of the Republic of Ireland (which it is not) or that it is part of one of the "countries" of the "country" of the United kingdom!!!!! Country generally implies soveriegn state: So why are Scotland and England defined as Countries if they are not soveriegn states but a part of the United Kingdom? Althought country is the most accurate definition of Scotland and England it is very misleading, for example, by simply reading "Scotland/England is a country" would imply that they are soveriegn states, as many do not go on to research articles such as this one. Shouldn't Scotland and England be defined as provinces if Northern Ireland is too or even "states" or "constitutiencies"? --Italay90 (talk) 01:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Shakes head in disbelief*

Not all regions of the UK are equal in what they are. England and Scotland are yes considered "countries". Wales in reality is a principality but the nationalists object to that. Northern Ireland however is a province of the United Kingdom. The use of the term province here has nothing to do with the ancient provinces of Ireland. Only the province of Ulster is which is a different entity altogether so it would not imply it is part of the RoI.

I do agree with the sovereign state comments, however what about the Basque Country? It's not a sovereign state, and by all definitions, country is not exclusively for sovereign states. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You're quite right about sovereign states, Mabuska. This tiresome claim that X is not a country because it's not sovereign simply contradicts well established usage. I do have to disagree with your comment about Wales though. Every time this sort of question comes up, someone claims that Wales is "a principality, not a country", but that claim's no better than the claim about sovereignty. First, the terms principality and country are not mutually exclusive. To say that X is one, so not the other, is to make a category error: principalities contrast with kingdoms, not countries (consider Liechtenstein). Second, that territory that lies West of Offa's Dyke is not in fact a principality in any case. The Principality of Wales was a medieval entity, smaller than Modern Wales, that came to an end in the sixteenth century. Since then it has survived only as an abstract entity in the peerage, much like the Earldom of Wessex (though that's a much more modern creation). You might as well say that Edinburgh's not a city, but a duchy. garik (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomenclature

This article contains (in my opinion) some serious issues, and I would point to previous disagreements in support of this view. This wiki really needs an initial paragraph that identifies how the United Kingdom as an entity may be considered to have different constituents depending on the categorisation being used. To illustrate this point:

(1) The domestic political constituents of the UK are generally taken to be England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

(2) In terms of sovereign territories (governed by their own parliament and with law making capabilities) are in primary legislation terms England, Wales and Northern Ireland taken together (the latter with devolved and secondary legislation capabilities), Scotland, which has primary legislation capabilities and the Isle of Mann (which is generally considered a Crown Dependency but which has ceded foreign affairs to the UK proper).

(3) In legal and constitutional terms the UK comprises the Kingdom of England and Wales (a single legal jurisdiction), the Kingdom of Scotland, Duchy of Cornwall, the Province of Northern Ireland and Earldom of Mann. These are all well defined legal entities that are co-terminus with their geographical areas. This should be stated clearly (and not mixed up with administrative territories which may be quite different).

(4) Administrative territories (under the remit of Secretaries of State or with devolved assemblies): England, Wales, Scotland and NI.

(5) In (legally binding) linguistic (and probably cultural) terms and backed by European Treaties there is England, Wales, Scotland, Cornwall and Northern Ireland. Particular reference here should be made to the European Convention on Regional and Minority Languages.

(6) In historic terms map makers (prior to 1600) almost always recognised just England/Anglia (which included Wales by the way), Cornubia/Cornwall, Scotia/Scotland and Ireland/Hibernia. This are always the 'ancient' nations of Britain. This should be referenced (even if only pointed to in another wiki) and the names of map makers and dates of publication given.

(7) Finally, in de facto C20/C21 political terms one should be ready to admit that treating England as a unity is unwise and that at the very least there is a 'North/South divide', and, in reality there is a more colourful and wider interpretation of what 'England' actually means, politically, socially etc. The recent regional devolution debate should be noted and potentially a synopsis of the present position compared to Spain, Germany and France given.

I raise this issue not to be nit-picky but because any effective wiki description of the UK needs to identify these different perspectives, reference them and set them for ease of use. I would appreciate constructive feedback on this so that this article may be strengthened and made more relevant for reasons of comparative geo-political analysis.Artowalos (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)artowalos

Some points on the above:

1. Not sure if England can be considered a "political constituent", though IIRC laws now are assumed to only refer to "England" unless they are explicitly said to apply to "England and Wales".
2. The UK parliament (obviously) has primary legislative powers, England has no legislature, the Northern Ireland Assembly is capable of primary legislation, as is Scotland, a (recently) Wales.
3. England has no Secretary of State or devolved assembly.
4. I don't believe that English is a "regional" or "minority language", even in England.
5. Not sure about Cornwall (or the necessity for Latin terms), but it may be worth mentioning.
6. I doubt greatly that the regional "divides" in England are anything comparable with Spain (where different, and sometimes unrelated, local languages are spoken in different regions) or Germany (where the country was only relatively recently unified and which is a federal state).

With respect to the Isle of Man, the Isle of Mann is not normally considered a part of the UK for domestic purposes but I would argue it is worth mentioning here. However, if we are mentioning Mann we should not forget the Channel Islands.

All that said, I think you are right to point out that the multi-faceted and multidimensional nature of this topic. --RA (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I think while Artowalos is right regarding the complexity of the issue, there are some factual errors in what s/he says although, ironically, they do help underline the complexity!

1) Yes. Although I would suggest you could say they are universally understood to be so, not just generally.

2) The only sovereign polity within the UK is the UK. The regional parliaments/assemblies are internally devolved institutions, not federal ones, and they exist only at the continuing pleasure of the Westminster government and may not legislate on certain matters. The Isle of Man is sovereign (or rather, the Crown in right of the Isle of Man is), but is not part of the United Kingdom at all, nor has it ever been. It is a self-governing Crown Dependency and that is its actual, precise legal status, not just a general perception. It does have close links to the UK however: The UK is responsible for its defence, and represents the IOM Government in foreign affairs. The two countries are also in a currency union (although the IOM Government issues its own banknotes and coins)and are part of the Common Travel Area,along with Ireland, Jersey and Guernsey.

3) No, completely wrong. The Kingdoms of England and Scotland were extinguished in 1707. However, while the two states were merged into the single Kingdom of Great Britain, the Treaty of Union preserved Scotland's legal system which remains distinct from that in 'England and Wales' (i.e. the former Kingdom of England)to this day. The situation with Northern Ireland is similar, following the union of Great Britain with Ireland in 1801, although the issue is clouded by the legal fudge surrounding partition. The Duchy of Cornwall is a complete red herring. It is not a national polity at all, it is just a private real estate holding that exists to provide the heir to the throne with an income and most of its land is not even in Cornwall. While Cornwall itself has a distinct regional identity, politically and administratively it is part of England and always has been - indeed its Celtic rulers were overthrown by the Saxons before 'England' even existed. It has no legal status other than Unitary District and Cermonal County. The Isle of Man is not part of the UK at all (see (2)).

4) Administratively speaking, there is no such thing as England. As a unitary state, any part of the UK without its own devolved assembly is by definition just the UK. In England there is the UK government, the local authorities, and nothing in between (London excepted). I don't agree with that state of affairs (there should be an English Parliament with the same powers as the others), but that doesn't alter the fact.

5) Not really. Politically, the EU treats with one sovereign entity: the UK. The UK is divided up by various EU institutions into different areas for elections to the parliament, or for statistical analyses, for example. There are also regional funding programmes. These can't really be considered constituent parts of the UK though, in my opinion, in the sense of this article. Linguistically (although, again, nothing to do with countries per se), English and Welsh are official languages in the UK, and the EU/UK also recognise Cornish, Irish, Ulster Scots, Scots (Lallans) and Sottish Gaelic as minority languages.

6) Yes, although I believe this article is more of an attempt to explain the modern divisions.

7) The point is worthy of debate, although I don't personally agree. Self identity is a fluid thing, it depends wholly at what level one is comparing oneself with others. Put a Cumbrian sheep farmer, a factory worker from Stoke and a commodities trader from London in a room together and I'm sure they would consider themselves as different from one another as chalk from cheese, but add a Scot, or a German, or an American or whatever to the room and I think the first three would agree they shared in an English identity. P M C 23:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

"generally considered to be a close union"

A claim in the Demography section that "The United Kingdom is generally considered to be a close union by its inhabitants, with shared values, language, currency and culture, and with people moving and working freely throughout" relied on a reference to this article which says almost the opposite, e.g. that "turning British identity into a goal of public policy is increasingly running up against a steadily strengthening sense of Englishness". That this peculiar statement went unchallenged for a while does not give it any more validity than if it had been inserted half an hour ago. It is at most an opinion, so I have deleted it. Brocach (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Article for deletion?

This article does nothing to explain the British constitution or indeed the use of the 'Country' within a sovereign nation state, particularly a unitary state. Indeed in my previous sentence there is more factual legal information than the entire article.

Lead

Currently the first sentence is:

Countries of the United Kingdom is a term that can be used to describe England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales: the four parts of the United Kingdom

This is supported by the footnote:

UK Cabinet Office: Devolution Glossary (Accessed 7 September 2010): "United Kingdom: Term used most frequently for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the modern sovereign state comprising England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland."

1. The footnote does not support the sentence as it is referring it could just as easily be referring to parts, regions, provinces landfill sites or whatever as it does not say that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are countries.
2. What else can the "term" be used for? If it can not be used for anything else then what is the meaning of "that can be used to describe"?
3. "the four parts of the United Kingdom" well no not necessarily, it depends what one means by part, it certainly is not talking about the physical parts as there are more than four islands. As part is not defined it has no more meaning than saying "The parts of the United Kingdom is a term that can be used to describe England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales". Most of the inhabitance of those parts do not describe the part they live in as "part of the United Kingdom" as one could just as easily write "I live on the Isle of White a part of the United Kingdom".

The lead sentence needs to drop the word "term" and state what are the "Countries of the United Kingdom." -- PBS (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)