Talk:United Kingdom

Scots rebellion was about British sovereignty, not Catholicism

The section in 'History' under "After the Acts of Union of 1707", should mention that the King George I, and the House of Hanover were German, and he barely spoke English, and that the Scottish uprising was not just about Protestantism, but that the House of Hanover were not thought of as British by almost anyone in Britain. The uprising had a lot to do with British sovereignty, not just Catholicism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.55.165 (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2017‎ (UTC)

Current Political Status As A ‘Democracy’ 2019

Okay, so there is much coverage on whether the U.K. is actually a democracy any longer since MP’s have openly refused to implement the result. With this in mind I recommend we edit the article to read that the U.K. was until very recently a democracy but now that status is in question. Not that the U.K. is no longer a democracy but that the status has a question mark attached. Roland Of Yew (talk) 08:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Doesnt really need to change just because you disagree with the actions of elected officials doesnt question the status as a democracy. Being a democracy allows you to change the elected officials if you are not happy and that is still possible through a free vote at the next general election. MilborneOne (talk) 08:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The referendum had as much legal effect as an opinion poll. It is up to the UK government to decide if it wants to implement the result or not. Frenzie23 (talk) 08:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Who did I disagreed with MP’s? You seem to be trying to assign an Venda where there is none, making assumptions about another editor based on nothing whatsoever, The current political status is in question and should be addressed, why are you so adamant that the issue which has been widely disseminated be hidden? Roland Of Yew (talk) 08:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry perhaps we jumped to the conclusion that the "result" you talked about was the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum perhaps you need to explain which result or issue makes you think the UK is no longer a democracy. MilborneOne (talk) 08:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

It is things like ‘the referendum had as much legal effect an an opinion poll’ that concerns me, any editor with a neutral point of view would never have written that especially so considering the U.K. government has given the ‘opinion poll’ the weight of primary legislation. I think that if you have a political position on the issue perhaps you should back off from reverting other editors edits who are only trying to (neutrally) reflect the facts.Roland Of Yew (talk) 08:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Please indent your conversation as it makes the thread easier to follow. I've done it for you in the paragraph above. Bazza (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• I think there is some confusion here. I am referring to the coverage that U.K. mp’s have openly stated that they refuse to implement the result of the 2016 EU referendum which is politically huge. I don’t care one way of the other but there has been both national and international press coverage of the issue. So when I go to edit the article to reflect this my edit is immediately reverted with an editor accusing me of holding some sort of,political position and promoting an agenda which is completely unacceptable.Roland Of Yew (talk) 08:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I hadnt actually seen your edit to the article but as it has been challenged you really need to gain a consensus here for adding it. That said any discussion on your or anybody elses motives or agenda are not acceptable. MilborneOne (talk) 08:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

(ec)The referendum on 2016 was, indeed, non-binding. Nonetheless, as I understand the mechanism being used, your and my representatives in parliament have been holding the government, led by a prime minister (who we do not elect), as it implements leaving the European Union. Those representatives were chosen by eligible voters in 2017. That is all by-the-by for this article, though. On the more general point of the UK being a democracy, I've had the rare pleasure of casting votes in two elections this month. I wasn't coerced into voting one way or another, nor do I have any reason to suppose my votes were not taken into account in determining my representatives in local government and the European parliament. The fact that none are my own preferences are neither here nor there: that is, I believe, how democracy works. You will need to provide good, concrete and reliable references for your assertion that the UK is not a democracy, sufficiently robust to counter any which will assert that it is, these including references for my anecdotal evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazza 7 (talk • contribs)

Roland of Yew, you are barking up the wrong tree. Check out democracy for some pointers, or if that does not help, try Parliament of the United Kingdom Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

There are clearly degrees of democracy. The Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe mostly styled themselves "democracies", as did other communist one-party states. I know this won't please Remain-inclined readers, but if the UK remains in the EU in spite of the 2016 referrendum result, then its democratic credentials must be compromised.

Current U.K. Political Status Consensus Discussion

Hello, I wish to edit the article and add citations to well-known, respected sources questioning the UK’s current political status. The position of a number of both left and right publications suggest that there is a question mark over whether the U.K. is still a democracy following the stated refusal by many MP’s to implement the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum The referendum in question has primary legislation attached to it so this is a absolutely huge political story and worthy of addition. I do not plan to suggest that the U.K. is no longer a democracy but purely reflect the sources question mark on the country’s political status. In closing, this is not a political discussion about the validity of said referendum or the EU, just a discussion about whether the sources should be added that there is a on-going debate among the political class, the electorate and the 4th estate as to whether the U.K. is legally still a democracy. Roland Of Yew (talk) 09:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

What does "legally a democracy" mean? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

What are these “well-known, respected sources” you wish to cite? You say that you want “just a discussion about whether the sources should be added” without saying what these sources are. I don’t believe you will be able to cite a WP:RS seriously proposing that Britain is not a democracy based on the premise you put forward. Your edit to the article wrongly cites the Robert Saunders’ New Statesman article to support your contention that there is a “question mark” over whether the UK is “still” a democracy. That is not what Saunders is saying - his argument is making a different and more subtle point. Read it again. DeCausa (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Theresa May isn't technically PM anymore; she has officially resigned. YttriumShrew (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

She's resigned as leader of the Conservative Party, but not as PM. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Why is she being shown as acting leader of the party? GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

She has resigned as leader of the Conservative Party, but while a new leader is being elected she continues as acting (or caretaker) leader. This is quite distinct from her role as Prime Minister which is a Royal appointment. When a new party leader emerges May will formally ask the Queen to relieve her of the office of PM and will offer advice as to whom the next PM should be. The requirement for a PM is that he should be able to command a majority in the House of Commons in order to effectively govern. In practice that is the leader of the largest party or else of a coalition. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Would've made more sense for her to resign as party leader upon the election of her successor. Oh well, I reckon it's a done differently in the UK, as compared to Canada. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

No, it's done differently in each political party: in this case the Conservative Party. How and when a party's leader is picked is nothing to do with the country's constitutional arrangements. Bazza (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Just a commentary on the whole acting party leader bit & how it would've been avoided, if May had stayed on until her successor was chosen. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Could be worse. In 1940 Churchill became PM and not party leader. Chamberlain stayed on as party leader for another 6 months. -- Eckerslike (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

That of course was the war-time coalition (WWII in Europe was 1939-45). The Labour party would not accept Chamberlain as the leader and so (eventually) the King appointed Churchill as PM. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Are we a democracy? Let's vote on it! --A D Monroe III^(talk) 20:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Commonly referred to as England

I'm proposing that in some way the first sentence should mention that the United Kingdom is commonly referred to as "England". Although this is a partially inaccurate term, since England is a subdivision/country in the United Kingdom, many people still use this term to refer to the UK. Even in the media the UK is sometimes referred to as England, not because they are the same thing, but because England is the largest "country" in the UK and is the more well known than Scotland and Wales. Maybe the first sentence could say "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK), Britain, and sometimes inaccurately referred to as England", or something like that. Bill Williams (talk) 04:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a weighting issue. I wouldn't say it was commonly used, although there are places where it would not be uncommon either. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about worldwide, but in the US a very large number of people refer to the UK as "England". Most US children definitely think England is the same as the UK, and use it as if they are synonymous, but even many adults colloquially refer to the UK as "England". Bill Williams (talk) 05:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

This is mainly because England makes up most of the UK's area and 80% of its population. It is also administered directly by the UK parliament, so it isn't really as independent from the UK as Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland. Bill Williams (talk) 05:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

As someone who is British and English, it really grates on me as very uneducated whenever people (mostly Americans) do that. It is inaccurate and I'd love to see what would happen if they tell a Scotsman or Northern Irishman they are English! We have to remember that Wikipedia represents a world view, not just one that may affirm an incorrect American assertion. So no, we should not put such an erroneous statement in the lead sentence. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

"I don't know about worldwide, but in the US" It is the same here in Greece. In the 19th century, a pro-British political party in Greece literally called itself the English Party (Αγγλικό Κóμμα, Anglico Comma) in contrast to its rivals, the pro-French French Party and the pro-Russian Russian Party. In a similar situation, most Greeks use Holland in reference to the Netherlands. Dimadick (talk) 06:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Referring to people as uneducated who say England instead of the UK shows an ignorance of what led to this widespread usage. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think it being “erroneous” is that relevant. If there are WP:RS that can evidence that a pars pro toto usage exists, then it should be covered in the article. It’s a question of producing the sources. DeCausa (talk) 08:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, I am not saying the term is accurate, since England is obviously not the same is the UK, but it is very widely used. Most people do not even think that England is the entire UK, but it makes up 83% of the population and over 50% of the area, so it's by far the most well-known and influential. Another related example of a country misnomer is in the article on Holand, which says "Holland is a region and former province on the western coast of the Netherlands. The name Holland is also frequently used informally to refer to the whole of the country of the Netherlands." This is almost the same thing with England and the UK, except Holland makes up only 38% of the country's population and 34% of the area. Even though Holland is no where near most of the Netherland's area or population, it is still listen in Holland's article as a misnomer for the Netherlands. And Holland is a misnomer used far less than "England". I think a good way to describe "England" when referring to the UK is "The United Kingdom... sometimes inaccurately referred to as England," and that could go in the lead in some way or another. Bill Williams (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I think adding this to the article in the first sentence would actually help educate people, since it would clear things up if you said "sometimes inaccurately referred to" and people would realize that England is not the same as the UK. Bill Williams (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a section on this in Terminology of the British Isles, I dont think it needs any more prominence then that. MilborneOne (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

If we have reliable sources saying that "England" is used as a synonym for the UK (rather than just some examples of RSs using it in that way) then I think it should be included. Also, if it can be reliably sourced as in common usage, then it should not be characterised as erroneous, but as an alternative term. The English language isn't regulated, and what were thought of as "incorrect" usages, become "correct" with time, whether we personally like it or not. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's an idea—rather than speculate about whether there are sources which claim that "England" is a "synonym" for, or is interchangeable per "common usage" with, the "United Kingdom", perhaps you could find any relevant references and post them here. "England" is only used erroneously in reference to the United Kingdom, and for the record I would be completely opposed to inserting any clarificatory point into the lead. There is no precedent for doing this (see Netherlands). It would also be entirely unnecessary. Endymion.12 (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I think part of the confusion here is that people are confusing colloquial shorthand with formal/common usage. People might casually refer to the Netherlands as "Holland", or might have referred to the former USSR as "Russia", but this differs from "common usage". Americans may colloquially refer to the UK as "England", but I doubt many US newspapers do this, for example. Endymion.12 (talk) 13:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I definitely agree that the term is inaccurate, but you are incorrect in your assertion that it is not commonly used. People frequently referred to the Soviet Union as Russia, since it was the principle nation, and most people believe Holland is just a nickname for the Netherlands and use it as such. I know it sounds like I'm just doing original research, but I'll try to see if I can find articles on the usage of the term "England" later on. Currently I can't access most websites, so I'm not able to cite any sources at the moment. Bill Williams (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Referring to the UK as "Britain" is similarly inaccurate, since Britain does not include Northern Ireland. That misnomer is still included in the first sentence. Bill Williams (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

No, "Britain" can also refer to the United Kingdom as well as Great Britain. This usage is very common and is generally accepted, unlike "England" as shorthand for the UK which is generally regarded as erroneous. Endymion.12 (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Google search scholar and books for "Prime Minister of England" and you will find countless examples of England being used to refer to the UK by quality sources. That includes prime ministers after the creation of GB and the UK. Incidentally, the Dutch frequently call the UK England and their own country Holland. Colloquial or not, it matters not one jot: reliable secondary sources is what counts. There has been a strong shify in the last fifty or so years within the UK to stress the separate identity of its constituent countries and that shift has not been reflected to the same extent elsewhere. I think this might have something to do with the frustration expressed by some of our editors. Look at a photo of the crowd at Wembley in the 1966 final [1] -- Union flags everywhere and barely a glimpse of the Cross of St George. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Go and find some sources then, per my previous comment (WP:GHITS is not good enough). Let's see if you can demonstrate that "England" is a widely used and accepted synonym for/common usage term in reference to the United Kingdom. Wikipedia is (supposed to be) an encyclopedia, and should therefore record common/accepted usage, and not elevate mistaken or colloquial shorthand to a formal/accepted status it does not in fact have. Endymion.12 (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

If the lead were to be changed to state that the UK is commonly referrred to as England (something I wouldn't support without several high quality sources), I would expect that the result would be a steady stream of corrective edits from outraged IPs in Scotland, Wales, NI and also England. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

It's hair-pulling enough, that CNN personnel continue to use 'England' when mentioning the UK. Best we don't encourage such misinformation, on this article's intro. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Do we really need quality sources to reference any such insertion in to the lead? Wouldn't that be covered by pedantry? Whether we like it or not, it happens. I think if we do insert some comment it should be carefully worded to hold off the hoards of tartan clad IPs that would be finger punching their mobile phones. Thank you GD for yet further confirmation of its use in the media. ...sometimes (instead of often or commonly) incorrectly referred to as England, especially by people outside the UK... is an idea? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Just a thought: how happy are people from the southern states of the US at being called "Yanks" or "Yankees"? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

It's a nickname used by some people, and we couldn't care less. Yankees refers to the North, and it's just a nickname, but it used to be slightly pejorative 150 years ago, if you only read things from then. That is a real nickname for the Northeastern US, but it isn't used to describe the US as a whole. Many people describe the UK as "England". They are incorrect, but many know that England is not the entire UK, they just use it because England is more well known and nicer to say. Bill Williams (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Roger 8 Roger: I'll re-post part of my previous comment, hope this helps: Let's see if you can demonstrate that "England" is a widely used and accepted synonym for/common usage term in reference to the United Kingdom. Wikipedia is (supposed to be) an encyclopedia, and should therefore record common/accepted usage, and not elevate mistaken or colloquial shorthand to a formal/accepted status it does not in fact have. (Interesting though that we've gone from "follow the references" to "we don't need references", how extraordinary)

"The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK), Britain, or sometimes incorrectly referred to as England, especially by people outside the UK, is a sovereign country located off the north-western coast of the European mainland.", is clearly a massive improvement, so thank you for that. I will refrain from commenting any further for the time being, and hope that commonsense prevails here. Endymion.12 (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Notability of Clarks shoes

I see there is a picture of a pair of Clarks shoes in the article for the United Kingdom. Can anyone explain to me why this image is important enough to represent Britain to the world, or has it just been placed there for marketing purposes? Clarks are not mentioned in the text of the article.Regularuk (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I think you need to assume good faith, Clarks have been making shoes in the UK since 1825 and the image is just an example to show what has been an import industry sector for a very long time by using one from a long established company. MilborneOne (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Anthem subtitles

At 0:35 you can see timing along with the anthem text in the subtitles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.129.137.21 (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)