# Northern Ireland = British?



## Whisky con ron

After having read, posted, read more and given up in the thread about using "American" as an exclusive term for a native of the USA, another question occurred to me (and the "link" between the two is the word "United" in the title of both nations)...

A person from Northern Ireland is considered a UK national, but he/she shouldn't be called British (because Great Britain is only Scotland, England and Wales).  Irish is no good either, since that probably means from the Republic of Ireland.

I know they have to put up with being called "British" (at least in the passport), because there is nothing like UK-donian, or UK-ans....  

Is there a better solution, maybe?  Anyone from Ireland that wants to give us some light in this?

Ta.


----------



## GenJen54

Hi Whiskey, 

We've had some recent discussions about this in the English Only forum.  You might want to take a look here and here. Hopefully, many of your questions will be answered. I still have to refer to them from time to time, because the matter itself is a bit confusing.


----------



## Whisky con ron

Hi GenJen.... thanks for the link.  Here's another confusing fact for you:  "Whiskey" is the Irish one, "Whisky" (like my nick) is Scottish....  

;-)


----------



## panjandrum

Northern Ireland citizens/subjects are British.  
They are entitled to carry British passports.  
They live in the British Isles.

Northern Ireland citizens/subjects are Irish.  
They are entitled to carry Irish passports.  
They live in Ireland.


----------



## cuchuflete

> they have to* put up with* being called "British"





> Irish is no good either, since that probably means from the Republic of Ireland.



I'm hoping that these are implicit questions, rather than declarations.  

I would hope the latter would come from those from Northern Ireland.


----------



## panjandrum

Cuchu,

Thanks for pointing that out.
I very, very deliberately avoided commenting on those value-judgements.

There are NI people who relish being British and deny their Irishness.

There are NI people who relish being Irish and deny their Britishness.

There are NI people who wish that the politics would get the hell out of the way and allow them to relax into being Irish in the entirely delightful sense of that word without others immediately assuming it is a political statement.

I don't "put up with being British" in any pejorative sense - any more than other UK subjects "put up with being British".

I have no difficulty in claiming that I am Irish, because that also is my right.  I was born in the island of Ireland.

You see this fence I am sitting on?
It is not exactly comfortable, but I am not alone.


----------



## timpeac

panjandrum said:
			
		

> Cuchu,
> 
> Thanks for pointing that out.
> I very, very deliberately avoided commenting on those value-judgements.
> 
> There are NI people who relish being British and deny their Irishness.
> 
> There are NI people who relish being Irish and deny their Britishness.
> 
> There are NI people who wish that the politics would get the hell out of the way and allow them to relax into being Irish in the entirely delightful sense of that word without others immediately assuming it is a political statement.
> 
> I don't "put up with being British" in any pejorative sense - any more than other UK subjects "put up with being British".
> 
> I have no difficulty in claiming that I am Irish, because that also is my right. I was born in the island of Ireland.
> 
> You see this fence I am sitting on?
> It is not exactly comfortable, but I am not alone.


 
It is by far the most complicated for you guys, but you are not alone. Being "British" means nothing to me - I am English and do not feel I share anything more with you Panj for being Irish than I do with Cuchu for being American (other than subsidising your taxes obviously OUCH! ) - yet I also must put up with "British" in my passport.


----------



## panjandrum

Timpeac has reminded me of the point I was about to make at the end of my post when I accidentally clicked on send.

The sentiments I expressed would be shared from a slightly different perspective by people who are British and also English, Scottish or Welsh.

Each country has its own series of axes to grind about being British.


----------



## Whisky con ron

Hi.  didn't mean any "judgement" by using the verb "put up" in my question.  It was the closest I could find to "conformar".... So, I will use my scape card and blame my poor English.

I guess, in my ignorance, I had not thought of Ireland being part of the "British Isles", and I just assumed that because they are not part of Great Britain, then they are not British.  The point brings another perspective.

My first experience with Irish/British etc was not long after I moved to Scotland, when I met an Irish guy and I said something about him being British.  He took great offence.  




> Northern Ireland citizens/subjects are British.
> They are entitled to carry British passports.
> They live in the British Isles.
> 
> Northern Ireland citizens/subjects are Irish.
> They are entitled to carry Irish passports.
> They live in Ireland.



So I assume that, if we look at it from the perspective of the British Isles, citizens of the Republic of Ireland can call themselves British...

Saludos


----------



## panjandrum

Whisky con ron said:
			
		

> So I assume that, if we look at it from the perspective of the British Isles, citizens of the Republic of Ireland can call themselves British...


~chuckle~
For a few moments I thought you'd got it right  - that bit is definitely not right, but considering the information you've been given so far, it is not a surprising slip 

There are many people from Northern Ireland (British and Irish) who would resent being called British.
There are also many who would resent being called Irish.
The citizens of the Republic of Ireland, although they live in the British Isles, are not British citizens - not British.

And of course there are some who don't particularly mind being whichever suits them at any point in time.
I chose to use the label Irish in these forums because I know that much of the English I use, and the way I use it and pronounce it, is characteristic of Ireland.  That, and it seemed the right kind of whimsical thing to do that day.

I realise how confusing this must all seem


----------



## Gustavoang

Whisky con ron said:
			
		

> Hi GenJen.... thanks for the link.  Here's another confusing fact for you:  "Whiskey" is the Irish one, "Whisky" (like my nick) is Scottish....
> 
> ;-)


What about this: "güisqui" is in Spanish   

This is not a joke, take a look at the DRAE definition of "güisqui":


> (Del ingl. whisky, y este del gaélico uisce beatha, agua de vida).
> 1. m. Licor alcohólico que se obtiene del grano de algunas plantas, destilando un compuesto amiláceo en estado de fermentación.



Cheers!


----------



## timpeac

panjandrum said:
			
		

> ~chuckle~
> For a few moments I thought you'd got it right - that bit is definitely not right, but considering the information you've been given so far, it is not a surprising slip
> 
> There are many people from Northern Ireland (British and Irish) who would resent being called British.
> There are also many who would resent being called Irish.
> The citizens of the Republic of Ireland, although they live in the British Isles, are not British citizens - not British.
> 
> And of course there are some who don't particularly mind being whichever suits them at any point in time.
> I chose to use the label Irish in these forums because I know that much of the English I use, and the way I use it and pronounce it, is characteristic of Ireland. That, and it seemed the right kind of whimsical thing to do that day.
> 
> I realise how confusing this must all seem


 
Just to give foreign speakers an idea of what us British may or may not understand by "Irish", although I was also confused at some of the details above, when Panj first joined the forums and I read "Irish" in his place of origin, I did not automatically assume he was from the republic of Ireland, but I did wonder whether he was NI or ROI, apart from anything else there are some differences in pronunciation matters (although as he says, it is more important to know someone is from the Isle of Ireland, but not which bit, than not know whether they are from NI or England). I think. I'm going for a lie down now...


----------



## Whisky con ron

panjandrum said:
			
		

> ~chuckle~
> For a few moments I thought you'd got it right - that bit is definitely not right, but considering the information you've been given so far, it is not a surprising slip


 
Not a "slip", just a counter-argument....  

Saludos.


----------



## panjandrum

Aha, you're right of course, I apologise.  

I missed the point the first time around - iit was too subtle for me as I rushed out the door.
Sure enough, from a geographical perspective, anyone living on the island of Ireland is also living on one of the British Isles - and might therefore justifiably call themselves British 

Just to add to the endless potential for confusion, the term *British Islands* has been used by the UK government since the _Interpretation Act 1978_ to collectively denote those lands within the British Isles which are inhabited by British citizens, i.e. the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.


----------



## gian_eagle

So, it's a neverending story... or Am I wrong? O.O


----------



## cuchuflete

gian_eagle said:
			
		

> So, it's a neverending story... or Am I wrong? O.O



Care to make this a bit more clear?


----------



## rob.returns

wow. This thread really opens up eyes..

I can't believe that it's that confusing for some people to identify what or how they really are, citizenwise.

I feel blessed.

Did you ever encounter some major problems, regarding about this conflict?


----------



## panjandrum

rob.returns said:
			
		

> wow. This thread really opens up eyes..
> 
> I can't believe that it's that confusing for some people to identify what or how they really are, citizenwise.


There is no confusion at all for those of us actually involved.  It is only confusing for those on the outside who try, for some bizarre reason, to understand.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Linked from this thread.

Let me sort out some of the confusion from a Dublin perspective (I was going to say Irish but that only complicates things ). 

Anyone from the island of Ireland is Irish, if only in the geographic sense. I think even militant Loyalists would accept that.

People from Northern Ireland can be both British _and_ Irish at the same time - if you hold a UK passport this is how you'd be defined. It can get even more complicated though as Ireland is not part of the island of Great Britain* therefore I prefer UK citizen in this instance but I think the law would describe you as British.

You can also be from N.I. and be nothing other than Irish - anyone born on the island of Ireland is entitled to an Irish passport and if you hold an Irish passport alone, as many in Northern Ireland do, I certainly wouldn't class you as British.

As ever in these situations, there is a complicated mix of religion and nationality. Describing someone from Northern Ireland, without knowing their political persuasion, as solely British or solely Irish is risky in the extreme.

*Indeed the term British Isles means nothing here so people from the Republic of Ireland cannot be described as British, even if only in a geographic sense. If only the British authorities had to have had the foreisght to see the disaster that would result from bribing Grattan's parliament into voting for its own dissolution in 1800 we might never have had to endure all this rubbish, unfortunately Irish history rarely pans out in a logical manner.


----------



## ampurdan

What about British Overseas Territories (Gibraltar, Fawkland Islands, Bermuda, British Antilles, etc.) and Crown Dependencies (Channel Islands, Isle of Man)?

Natives of the Crown Dependencies have been long considered British Citizens, right? The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands have been considered to be British Islands and are a part of the UK, right?

From the UK legal point of view, not always and not all the citizens of the current and past Overseas Territories have been British or fully British, right? Are they nowadays?


----------



## Brioche

ampurdan said:


> What about British Overseas Territories (Gibraltar, Fawkland Islands, Bermuda, British Antilles, etc.) and Crown Dependencies (Channel Islands, Isle of Man)?
> 
> Natives of the Crown Dependencies have been long considered British Citizens, right? The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands have been considered to be British Islands and are a part of the UK, right?
> 
> From the UK legal point of view, not always and not all the citizens of the current and past Overseas Territories have been British or fully British, right? Are they nowadays?



The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are part of the United Kingdom for the purposes of the 1981 Nationality Act, but not for other purposes.
They are not part the European Union.  So the islanders have British citizenship, but not EU citizenship.
UK taxes do not apply on the islands.

Ordinary British citizens need a residence permit to live on the Channel Islands - a different permit for each island, and work permits on the Isle of Man.
People from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man do not have the right to live and work in the EU, unless they have a parent or grand parent born on the mainland, or have lived on the mainland for 5 years.

People from the Channel Island and the Isle of Man have passports which look like UK passports, but do not have European Union on them.

It's all very complicated.


----------



## chamyto

One thing I figured out when I was in Derry last summer  ( Northern Ireland ) is that the banknotes are completely different from the banknotes issued by the Bank of England.

Why does it have ( NI ) different banknotes if it is the sterling too ?


----------



## ampurdan

The same thing happens in Scotland. They have sterling pound bank notes issued by the Bank of Scotland. Well, after all there's no Bank of Britain or UK central bank known as such, right? The Bank of England is the one.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

chamyto said:


> One thing I figured out when I was in Derry last summer  ( Northern Ireland ) is that the banknotes are completely different from the banknotes issued by the Bank of England.
> 
> Why does it have ( NI ) different banknotes if it is the sterling too ?



Because certain private banks in Northern Ireland and Scotland have the right to issue sterling banknotes.
Very often, these notes are not accepted as legal tender in England which only accepts - or likes to accept - Bank of England banknotes.

If they joined the Euro it'd make things a hell of a lot easier from an Irish perspective but there you go.


----------



## panjandrum

Banks in Scotland and Northern Ireland prefer their own notes to Bank of England notes for reasons related to their internal accounting.  
In days gone by these notes were often refused in England.
It hasn't happened to me for years.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

panjandrum said:


> Banks in Scotland and Northern Ireland prefer their own notes to Bank of England notes for reasons related to their internal accounting.
> In days gone by these notes were often refused in England.
> It hasn't happened to me for years.



Interestingly enough, I was in a bank up North a few days back where I was told that if I went to England I should exchange my Northern Irish notes for Bank of England ones as they "prefer to see the Queen's head on the notes over there".


----------



## elirlandes

panjandrum said:


> Northern Ireland citizens/subjects are British.
> They are entitled to carry British passports.
> They live in the British Isles.
> 
> Northern Ireland citizens/subjects are Irish.
> They are entitled to carry Irish passports.
> They live in Ireland.



Note - although British people can be classified as subjects of the crown (i.e. they are accepting of their subservient position to a monarch). Irish citizens are not "subjects". As a republic, the concept of being subject or inferior to another person is anathema.



Whisky con ron said:


> So I assume that, if we look at it from the perspective of the British Isles, citizens of the Republic of Ireland can call themselves British...


No - British refers to the nationality of those from the United Kingdom. British Isles however is a geographical term which is perfectly acceptable to Irish (nationalist / republican) people to refer to the collection of islands of which Ireland is one.



Gustavoang said:


> What about this: "güisqui" is in Spanish


Aqua vitae (latin) = Water of Life (English) = uisce beatha (Irish) [pronounced "ishka baja" for a spanish speaker] 
The first word of this, Uisce (water) was eventually anglicised as whiskey, from which "hispanified" as "güisqui".



panjandrum said:


> The term *British Islands* has been used by the UK government since the _Interpretation Act 1978_ to collectively denote those lands within the British Isles which are inhabited by British citizens, i.e. the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.


This would seem to make perfect sense. 
British Isles = a geographic term for the whole collection of islands
British Islands = those islands in the British Isles which are British (i.e. under the sovereignty of the crown)
You could also imagine a term "Irish Islands" = Islands which are constituent of the Republic of Ireland.




cuchuflete said:


> Care to make this a bit more clear?





panjandrum said:


> There is no confusion at all for those of us actually involved.  It is only confusing for those on the outside who try, for some bizarre reason, to understand.



As we always used to say to foreigners when I was a youngster -
If you are not confused, you haven't understood.


Another confusing element comes with the Olympics.

You may notice that at the Olympic games, there is a team from Great Britain - they wear "GB" on their tracksuits, not "UK".

This is because the Olympic Council of Ireland represents the people of the Island, not the Republic of Ireland (although in practice, the flag and anthem of the Republic are often used to represent them). Most sports in Ireland are organised on a whole-island basis, without making a seperation for the Republic and the North.

Even soccer. The IFA which rules over Soccer in Northern Ireland was the governing body of soccer in Ireland prior to the division, and for quite some time purported to be the sole representative body on for the whole island.

People from Northern Ireland of a British persuasion may choose to represent Great Britain at the Olympics - certainly there have been various who have done so. Dame Mary Peters from Northern Ireland one gold for GB for example.  That said, you will also find Northern Irish people from both sides of the divide who opt for a green Irish shirt. For those of an Irish/Nationalist persuasion this is not unusual - they are likely to hold an Irish passport as well. For those of a "British" persuasion, it could be because they are representing the Irish association (athletics, rugby whatever) which runs the sport on an all-island basis, or simply because, despite having a strong feeling of British-ness, getting on to the UK team might be more difficult as there is more competition for places, so opting for Ireland is an easier route to international competition.

Generally, despite the old rivalries, people from the Republic will be supportive of these "Irish" athletes where there is no representative of the Republic involved.

A final further confusion is the reverse of all of this. Any Irishman (North or South, Catholic or Protestant, Unionist or Nationalist) who plays cricket aspires to play for England...


----------



## Kevin Beach

To clarify the complication even more, I am British because I was born in England to British parents (well, my father was born in Canada of British parents, but that's another story). However, my mother's parents were born in Northern Ireland. Under the constitution of the Irish Republic (i.e. southern Ireland), everybody who has at least one grandparent born anywhere on the island of Ireland (i.e. north or south) is entitled to Irish citizenship. I could therefore apply to be recorded as a citizen of the Irish Republic and to receive an Irish passport (as well as my British one) even though I have been to the Republic only three or four times and have never been to the north!

Now, that's an _Irish_ clarification.


----------



## curly

Kevin Beach said:


> T Under the constitution of the Irish Republic (i.e. southern Ireland), everybody who has at least one grandparent born anywhere on the island of Ireland (i.e. north or south) is entitled to Irish citizenship. I could therefore apply to be recorded as a citizen of the Irish Republic and to receive an Irish passport (as well as my British one) even though I have been to the Republic only three or four times and have never been to the north!



Which is, I believe, why we have such inconvenient laws regarding the right to vote. If I wish to vote I have to return to Ireland to cast the ballot. If we let every citizen of the Republic register a postal vote from outside the country, there could potentially be more votes from people that have never lived there than there would be resident Irish people. Strange strange country...


----------



## elirlandes

curly said:


> Which is, I believe, why we have such inconvenient laws regarding the right to vote. If I wish to vote I have to return to Ireland to cast the ballot. If we let every citizen of the Republic register a postal vote from outside the country, there could potentially be more votes from people that have never lived there than there would be resident Irish people. Strange strange country...



The same is true in reverse. As many many people in the republic had grandparents born before independence (and therefor in the United Kingdom) they could all claim British citizenship as well. If I am not mistaken, you need to be resident in the UK to vote in British elections.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

elirlandes said:


> No - British refers to the nationality of those from the United Kingdom. British Isles however is a geographical term which is perfectly acceptable to Irish (nationalist / republican) people to refer to the collection of islands of which Ireland is one.



It isn't acceptable to me, nor to the Irish government, which does not recognize it as a valid legal term.


----------



## carlosch

I see this very clearly, Irish are the people of the island (Ireland). A citizenship imposed by a foreign country by way of invasion does not change your genes, a paper does not change your genes (even though some people think it does). Northern Ireland could have been invaded by Japan and they could have been japanese citizens carrying japanese passports and Belfast the 13th province of Japan but that historic accident would have not turned Irish people into Japanese.

Northern Ireland people are Irish with UK citizenship and passport, but they remain irish (nationality), that is my point of view.


----------



## Kevin Beach

carlosch said:


> I see this very clearly, Irish are the people of the island (Ireland). A citizenship imposed by a foreign country by way of invasion does not change your genes, a paper does not change your genes (even though some people think it does). Northern Ireland could have been invaded by Japan and they could have been japanese citizens carrying japanese passports and Belfast the 13th province of Japan but that historic accident would have not turned Irish people into Japanese.
> 
> Northern Ireland people are Irish with UK citizenship and passport, but they remain irish (nationality), that is my point of view.


I'm afraid that's too simplistic, carlosch. More than half of the population in Northern Ireland is still descended from Scottish and English settlors, who were moved there by the English government in the 16th and 17th centuries. They identify themselves as British even though their families have been there for ten or more generations. In the extreme, they regard the Republic of Ireland as a foreign country and republicans in Northern Ireland as traitors to the British crown.


----------



## carlosch

Kevin Beach said:


> I'm afraid that's too simplistic, carlosch. More than half of the population in Northern Ireland is still descended from Scottish and English settlors, who were moved there by the English government in the 16th and 17th centuries. They identify themselves as British even though their families have been there for ten or more generations. In the extreme, they regard the Republic of Ireland as a foreign country and republicans in Northern Ireland as traitors to the British crown.



Hi kevin, i have not studied to what extent there was substitution of population from outside by the English gov., if it was as great as you say then it can radically change the basic structure of that society (language, race, traditions...) and can indeed break the spine of what we call a nation, sustitution of population is classic colonialism, Hawaii is a good example of a substitution of population to such high degree that Hawaiians are a small minority now in their own homeland.


----------



## Frank78

Hello carlosch,

back in those days Ulster (what we now know as "Northern Ireland") posed the greatest threat to the English. This province resisted most to the English invaders. That´s why the crown decided to plant some loyal (and Protestant) settlers there.

Wikipedia has some interesting facts:
36% of the present-day population define themselves as Unionist , 24% as Nationalist and 40% define themselves as neither.[32] According to a 2007 opinion poll, *66% express long term preference of the maintenance of Northern Ireland's membership of the United Kingdom (either directly ruled or with devolved government), while 23% express a preference for membership of a united* *Ireland*.[33] This discrepancy can be explained by the overwhelming preference among Protestants to remain a part of the UK (89%), while Catholic preferences are spread across a number of solutions to the constitutional question including remaining a part of the UK (39%), a united Ireland (47%), Northern Ireland becoming an independent state (6%), and those who "don't know" (7%)

Note: Unionist=Pro-British, Nationalist=Pro-Irish


----------



## elirlandes

Frank78 said:


> back in those days Ulster (what we now know as "Northern Ireland")



Just to be hyper-correct, "Ulster" and "Northern Ireland" are not exactly the same thing. Ulster is one of the four traditional provinces of Ireland. It is made up of 9 counties (Antrim, Armagh, Down, Derry, Fermanagh, Tyrone, Cavan, Donegal & Monaghan). At the time of the partition of Ireland which created the political entity of Northern Ireland which remained part of the United Kingdom, the last 3 of these counties (Cavan, Donegal & Monaghan) were ceded to the new independent Free State, and as such, two thirds of Ulster is in Northern Ireland, and one third now forms part of the Republic.


----------



## Frank78

elirlandes said:


> Just to be hyper-correct, "Ulster" and "Northern Ireland" are not exactly the same thing. Ulster is one of the four traditional provinces of Ireland. It is made up of 9 counties (Antrim, Armagh, Down, Derry, Fermanagh, Tyrone, Cavan, Donegal & Monaghan). At the time of the partition of Ireland which created the political entity of Northern Ireland which remained part of the United Kingdom, the last 3 of these counties (Cavan, Donegal & Monaghan) were ceded to the new independent Free State, and as such, two thirds of Ulster is in Northern Ireland, and one third now forms part of the Republic.



I know but I wouldn´t make it more complicated


----------



## Kevin Beach

elirlandes said:


> Just to be hyper-correct, "Ulster" and "Northern Ireland" are not exactly the same thing. Ulster is one of the four traditional provinces of Ireland. It is made up of 9 counties (Antrim, Armagh, Down, Derry, Fermanagh, Tyrone, Cavan, Donegal & Monaghan). At the time of the partition of Ireland which created the political entity of Northern Ireland which remained part of the United Kingdom, the last 3 of these counties (Cavan, Donegal & Monaghan) were ceded to the new independent Free State, and as such, two thirds of Ulster is in Northern Ireland, and one third now forms part of the Republic.


To be even more hyper-correct, pedantic even, Ulster, Munster, Leinster and Connaught are the four old _kingdoms_ of Ireland, not provinces. The six counties of Ulster that are in the UK form a province of the _UK_, being detached from the rest of the UK and situated on another land mass.


----------



## Jocaste

Kevin Beach said:


> To be even more hyper-correct, pedantic even, Ulster, Munster, Leinster and Connaught are the four old _kingdoms_ of Ireland, not provinces. The six counties of Ulster that are in the UK form a province of the _UK_, being detached from the rest of the UK and situated on another land mass.



Whatever about their former status, of which there were actually five (Meath or _Mide_ included), there are today 4 provinces of Ireland which are used, amongst other things, in electoral sub-divisions and as representative bodies in sporting competitions.


----------



## Brioche

Jocaste said:


> Whatever about their former status, of which there were actually five (Meath or _Mide_ included), there are today 4 provinces of Ireland .



And because there were originally five provinces, the Irish word for province is _cúige_ which means "fifth part".

Literally, in Irish they are called the _Fifth of Ulster_, the _Fifth of Muster_, and so on.


----------



## curly

Frank78 said:


> Hello carlosch,
> 
> back in those days Ulster (what we now know as "Northern Ireland") posed the greatest threat to the English. This province resisted most to the English invaders. That´s why the crown decided to plant some loyal (and Protestant) settlers there.
> 
> Wikipedia has some interesting facts:
> 36% of the present-day population define themselves as Unionist , 24% as Nationalist and 40% define themselves as neither.[32] According to a 2007 opinion poll, *66% express long term preference of the maintenance of Northern Ireland's membership of the United Kingdom (either directly ruled or with devolved government), while 23% express a preference for membership of a united* *Ireland*.[33] This discrepancy can be explained by the overwhelming preference among Protestants to remain a part of the UK (89%), while Catholic preferences are spread across a number of solutions to the constitutional question including remaining a part of the UK (39%), a united Ireland (47%), Northern Ireland becoming an independent state (6%), and those who "don't know" (7%)
> 
> Note: Unionist=Pro-British, Nationalist=Pro-Irish



One also has to take into account the fact that the frontiers of Northern Ireland were deliberately drawn to include the largest area over which Unionists could maintain a majority. Some areas, such as Co. Fermanagh and Co. Tyrone had a nationalist majority, but were included because the large unionist majority in other counties could maintain, when taken together, a Unionist majority.


----------



## Smithy73

Perhaps it is correct if you consider that Ireland is a part of the British Isles.


----------



## Einstein

Smithy73 said:


> Perhaps it is correct if you consider that Ireland is a part of the British Isles.


I don't know how many people would agree with you! It also raises the question of why they are called the British Isles; is it purely geographical, meaning the group of islands of which Great Britain is the largest, or is it political, meaning the group of islands over which Great Britain claimed sovereignty?!


----------



## curly

I for one, and the government of the Republic of Ireland, for two, do not accept the term British Isles. 

It's not a point of political touchiness for me, simply that most countries are lazy with the way the term British Isles is used. 

It leads to confusion and inconvenience on my part that people having lived in Les iles brittaniques for more than a year, cannot give blood in France. 

That's the term that's used on the form, but the problem is that they mean the UK. I live in the Republic, and people having lived a year  in the UK are also excluded from giving blood in Ireland. Which means that because someone lazy French person decided to phrase it that way, instead of the accurate way, I was almost excluded from giving blood _without reason._

It's a term which I don't think should exist, because it leads to ridiculous confusion for people unacquainted with Ireland.


----------



## Fernando

In my humble and Spanish opinion, I find most useful to have a term (Islas Británicas, in Spanish) to define the isles of Britain, Man, Anglesey, Wight, Ireland, Shetland, etc. where most of their unhabitants speak English as their mother tongue and are citizens of either UK or Ireland.

I could be wrong but "British Isles" were named because of Britania (the only land the Romans knew from the continent) and not because we think that British people have any right over Eire. I think any poll in Spain will show more simpathy for "la verde y católica Irlanda" than for "la pérfida Albión".

Moreover, in Spain we use to name all British as "ingleses" (English). If they are from Scotland, N. Ireland or Wales is (apparently) unimportant to us in casual and not so casual speech. The word "británico" is almost unused (in Google, 5.7 m hits -mostly "official" use- against 65.9 m "inglés").

In the same way, we call all netherlanders as "holandeses". Though I am aware that people from Zeeland or Brabant are not exactly happy, no major conflict has arised (since 1715). Our "fraternal" previous relationship had not any connection with naming.

Of course, I understand that this is a discussion on the use of terms in English, but they were just my dos pesetas.

Edit: No offense intended against Irish, Brabanters, Zeelanders, Hollanders, Netherlanders and people from NW Europe as a whole.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

curly said:


> I for one, and the government of the Republic of Ireland, for two, do not accept the term British Isles.
> 
> It's not a point of political touchiness for me, simply that most countries are lazy with the way the term British Isles is used.
> 
> It leads to confusion and inconvenience on my part that people having lived in Les iles brittaniques for more than a year, cannot give blood in France.
> 
> That's the term that's used on the form, but the problem is that they mean the UK. I live in the Republic, and people having lived a year  in the UK are also excluded from giving blood in Ireland. Which means that because someone lazy French person decided to phrase it that way, instead of the accurate way, I was almost excluded from giving blood _without reason._
> 
> It's a term which I don't think should exist, because it leads to ridiculous confusion for people unacquainted with Ireland.





I have run into precisely the same problem in France, and complained, only to be later told, interestingly, that les iles Britanniques did not actually include Ireland and I was allowed to give blood after all. I'm sure the lady just told me that as she was running low on supplies 

The British Isles is not a recognized term in Ireland, and nor should it be. It's geographically unsound, and politically unacceptable. It's time it was consigned to where it belongs, the dustbin of history.



Fernando said:


> In my humble and Spanish opinion, I find most useful to have a term (Islas Británicas, in Spanish) to define the isles of Britain, Man, Anglesey, Wight, Ireland, Shetland, etc. where most of their unhabitants speak English as their mother tongue and are citizens of either UK or Ireland.



You're quite welcome to use the term British Isles to refer to islands under British sovereignty. Most Irish people wouldn't accept being labelled British, or English, however, so the term is clearly unsound, and unjustified, when extended to include us.


----------



## Smithy73

I think it is more that, in general, Irish people are totally opposed to anything "British". This is probably due to the illustrious history that we (i.e. Britain) have of slaughtering Catholics in Ireland, and stealing all of their food. I'm sorry for saying "all Irish people hate British people" as it is a generalisation, and I try to avoid using those, but that is why there is this "touchiness". My grandmother (born in NI as a Catholic) has a British passport, she is happy to call the British Isles "the British Isles" and has lived in England for around 50 years.


----------



## Frank78

Oddly enough the term "Britain/Britannia" is of Celtic origin. 

Geographically Ireland is for sure part of the British Isles while the Channel Islands are not.

Quite often, depending on the political climate, countries suddenly appear in another region, e.g. Russia (Northern Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia), Poland and Czechoslovakia became East European countries during the Cold War.



Pedro y La Torre said:


> You're quite welcome to use *the term British Isles to refer to islands under British sovereignty*. Most Irish people wouldn't accept being labelled British, or English, however, so the term is clearly unsound, and unjustified, when extended to include us.



So the North is a British isle and the Republic not?


----------



## curly

Smithy73 said:


> I think it is more that, in general, Irish people are totally opposed to anything "British". This is probably due to the illustrious history that we (i.e. Britain) have of slaughtering Catholics in Ireland, and stealing all of their food. I'm sorry for saying "all Irish people hate British people" as it is a generalisation, and I try to avoid using those, but that is why there is this "touchiness".


 I am perfectly willing to admit that I have an aversion to the British style of government, in the same way as I dislike certain other countries' governments, but they don't have anything to do with me, so I generally don't care in any concrete non-abstract way. It's when it presents practical problems that it bothers me.





Smithy73 said:


> My grandmother (born in NI as a Catholic) has a British passport, she is happy to call the British Isles "the British Isles" and has lived in England for around 50 years.


It would be a mistake to assume all Catholics feel Irish and that all Protestants feel "British". 

Now, feeling British as she does, living in Britain as she does, why would she have any practical reason for caring about this issue? It has no consequence on her life. It surely matters to her only slightly more than whether that country to the east is still called Yugoslavia or not. But to me and to other Irish people I'm sure, it has had and continues to have annoying and sometimes worrying consequences when people mistake/insist upon being right about what _country_ you live in.

How can one call it petty/overly touchy to correct someone's mistake, when such a mistake can create ridiculous problems? You may find the idea of someone calling/insisting that you are say, American, risible. But imagine if someone with any sort of authority insisted it was true and started applying the rules differently as if you really were American?


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Frank78 said:


> So the North is a British isle and the Republic not?



Technically, yes. Which just goes to show how absurd the term is.

If one started labelling Germany as part of the ''French landmass'', or Denmark and Finland as part of the ''Swedish Isles'', one can see how similar misunderstandings might result.

The British Isles has always been more a political than geographic term, and its reintroduction into English was by an English cartographer, John Dee, who was also a committed imperialist and wished to justify England (later Britain) having an empire abroad.

Now when Ireland was part of the UK, that was fine. However, nowadays we're not and haven't been since 1922. Hence, the term is outdated and no longer valid. Much like other terms which were once popular and are now considered archaic like negro, Deutsches Reich etc.


----------



## elirlandes

Government policy in the Republic of Ireland, particularly at the time of independence from the United Kingdom is/was particularly sensitive to they use of the word British in any context. As a result, it is true that British Isles is not a term that is used officially by state institutions in the Republic (although its prominence in general parlance means that it does creep in to some documentation as a quick search on www.gov.ie will show you...).

A minority subsection of the population in Ireland take a negative view on the term "British Isles", based on the same hyper-correction which is a result of misplacing the origin of the term as one relating to British having a meaning of "relationship to the United Kingdom".

General parlance in the Republic recognises that British Isles is in fact a geographical term that has no political overtones, and relates to the fact that the majority of the celts that lived in these islands in the period preceding the Roman and Germanic invasions were Britons. 

Note that in Irish, words related to British are used to refer to "celtic" peoples [Bríotánach = Breton, Breatnach = Welsh] whereas the word for "English" is "Sasanach" (which comes from "Saxon").

The term British Isles is generally not controversial in Ireland [and before you all chime in, I am a died in the wool Republican, Irish, non-British person], save for certain circles which try to be hyper-correct. There is no generalised term that acts as a recognised replacement for the term. Sometimes you hear "Great Britain and Ireland", but this leaves out a number of other islands (Mann, Hebridies etc) or "these islands" which as a turn of phrase avoids the controversy by not being specific at all.

I know very few Irish people who have been offended by the term Islas Britanicas to refer to the archipeligo where we come from. On the other hand, call me (and/or any other Irish person) Británico or worse still, as used to be regularly used, Inglés, and you will get a history lesson...

In the same vein, do Portuguese people complain about the term Iberian Peninsula? They are not Iberians, but rather Lusitanian in origin. Nobody calls Portuguese people Iberians, but few would say that Portugal is not on the Iberian Peninsula. It is not a dis-similar situation.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

elirlandes said:


> A minority subsection of the population in Ireland take a negative view on the term "British Isles", based on the same hyper-correction which is a result of misplacing the origin of the term as one relating to British having a meaning of "relationship to the United Kingdom".
> 
> General parlance in the Republic recognises that British Isles is in fact a geographical term that has no political overtones, and relates to the fact that the majority of the celts that lived in these islands in the period preceding the Roman and Germanic invasions were Britons.



With the greatest of respect, you're being disingenuous. Far more than a ''minority subsection of the population'' has a problem with it.

The term is not used in Irish geography textbooks these days, and hasn't been for some years if my schooling is anything to go by. The government doesn't use it as has already been made clear. It's not used in official circles.

Most people I know personally dislike it and never use it. Ditto for what I've read from many others online as regards the term. That's far more than a minority subsection.

Indeed, this recent article from the Guardian sheds some light on what Irish readers think of the term. I don't think they'd be in a minority if you asked the man in the street.

While I dislike the term for its obvious political overtones (which are there, whatever the origin might be), my main problem with it, like Curly, is the mistaken impression it gives, especially when dealing with foreigners. At times, this mistake can prove highly irritating indeed (see the blood donating issue).



elirlandes said:


> In the same vein, do Portuguese people complain about the term Iberian Peninsula? They are not Iberians, but rather Lusitanian in origin. Nobody calls Portuguese people Iberians, but few would say that Portugal is not on the Iberian Peninsula. It is not a dis-similar situation.



Were it specifically called the ''Spanish Peninsula'', I'm sure they would. Were the British Isles termed the North Atlantic Isles, I'd certainly have no problem with it, and I don't think anyone else would either.


----------



## elirlandes

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Indeed, this recent article from the Guardian ...



[QUOTE="The Guardian]
"Trailing an article that uses the term *accurately *("the first world  champion from outside the British Isles in 30 years") with an innacurate  statement on the front page of the website ("first foreigner to win  world title since 1980") shows how it can be easy to lazily conflate the  geographical with the political while making poor Ken Doherty a subject  of the British crown."[/QUOTE]

Even the article you mention describes "British Isles" as the correct term for the collection of these islands including Ireland. The complainant in the article effectively says that suggesting that the Dubliner Ken Doherty is from the British Isles is correct, but to suggest he is not foreign (in the UK) or that he is British is incorrect. I agree entirely with this position.

The British Lions / British and Irish Lions Rugby team polemic is a different story as they were originally called the British Lions to denote that they were from the United Kingdom. It grates on me (and the couple of guys I know who have played on the team from Ireland both before and after the name change) that they be called British Lions as they, and some of us who support them, are not British.

While some outside Ireland_ conflate_ the geographical term with a political concept, they do so incorrectly. Aside from those that set up the apparatus of the state and Sinn Féin (both of whom have eschewed use of the "British Isles" for political effect, despite its innoccuous non-political origins), those that avoid it today tend to do so (conciously or subconciously) as part of a more general tendancy in today's language to hypercorrect for political correctness. It is a correction that is not necessary, as the connotation that use of the term "British Isles" somehow suggests that we Irish are in fact British is not naturally in the term based on its origin. That connotation is imbued in the term by some, but this is really a recent thing, and you will find that many (I would suggest the majority) people in Ireland continue to use the term despite the State's sponsorship of avoidance of the term.

I am not seeking to create a debate here with my esteemed countryman Pedro, but rather to make foreros aware that you will not necessarily anger an Irishman by suggesting that Ireland is one of the British Isles.
You *will* however create enemies by suggesting that we are British, English, Anglos or Anglo-saxon/Anglo-sajón.


----------



## Einstein

This is an aside and serves only as an example.
Words concerning nationality are very often controversial. The Canadians would object to being called American because for English-speakers the word _American_ is associated with the USA (unless we say North American or South American, in which case it's a purely geographical term). On the other hand, Latin Americans have the opposite idea and object to the USA's monopoly of the word _American_.
Second example: I'm not Irish, I'm from the South-east of England, and yet I too object to the use of the term Anglo-Saxon, unless we're talking historically about the centuries before the Norman invasion. In my case I don't find it insulting, but just a silly piece of journalistic variation (and that's why they rope in the Irish too, who do have a right to be offended!).


----------



## curly

elirlandes said:


> While some outside Ireland_ conflate_ the geographical term with a political concept, they do so incorrectly.


 Knowing that they are wrong does not comfort me particularly. Call me Lithuanian if you want, so long as you mean that I am a citizen of the geographic and political entity that I know as the Republic of Ireland.


elirlandes said:


> I am not seeking to create a debate here with my esteemed countryman Pedro, but rather to make foreros aware that you will not necessarily anger an Irishman by suggesting that Ireland is one of the British Isles.


You will however anger him if you use British Isles to mean anything more than that collection of islands that starts after France and stops somewhere before Iceland. 

I imagine some geologists might find that term useful, but what does the average person need it for exactly? Can you change your money to British Isles currency? I know I didn't get a British Isles education. Pretty sure I've never paid taxes to the British Isles. 

I could understand if my relationship with the British Isles meant anything   but the most abstract thing, for which I can not see there being any purpose. The few bits of my identity that have to do with the British Isles are absolutely unrelated to anything a person would ask me. Except maybe my skin tone, I'll admit, most of us are damned pale. 

But for it's familiarity, it would be as a ridiculous a reference as someone saying, hey, you come from a karst landscape don't you? To which any sane person would respond - er, yes, what of it?


----------



## Fernando

curly said:


> Knowing that they are wrong does not comfort me particularly. Call me Lithuanian if you want, so long as you mean that I am a citizen of the geographic and political entity that I know as the Republic of Ireland.



As I and other foreros has stated, none of us have in mind nothing about citizenship.

For the record, I find most amusing (or rather stupid), the following terms:

- America (meaning US)
- North America (excluding Mexico)
- Latin America (including Belize and Jamaica, inter alia). And not, Julius Caesar did not conquer Peru).

But I use them assuming everybody understand the right thing and they are used in other language other than mine, when there is a quite different tradition.



curly said:


> I imagine some geologists might find that term useful, but what does the average person need it for exactly? Can you change your money to British Isles currency? I know I didn't get a British Isles education. Pretty sure I've never paid taxes to the British Isles.



There is something in the world beyond states and nations. As an example:

You can learn English in Europe, staying for a time in...

There is an awful and rainy weather in...

The ashes cloud is covering... and airports are closed in...

Spanish Armada tried to return to Spain around...


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Fernando said:


> As I and other foreros has stated, none of us have in mind nothing about citizenship.



You might not, but many everyday people do, I have personal experience of it. And even if everyone didn't, many (most?) of us here would still find the term outdated.



Fernando said:


> For the record, I find most amusing (or rather stupid), the following terms:
> 
> - America (meaning US)
> - North America (excluding Mexico)
> - Latin America (including Belize and Jamaica, inter alia). And not, Julius Caesar did not conquer Peru).



North America doesn't exclude Mexico, at least in English. And neither does Latin America include Belize or Jamaica. It only includes Latin-speaking countries, and on some rare occasions, Quebec.

In any case, none of those terms _include_ people who do not wish to be labelled as such.

Were you to start referring to Canadians as being from ''America'', although it might be technically correct in Spanish-speaking countries, chances are it would provoke a response.

In any case, there's no need for it to be used, except, perhaps, in some geographical circles. If one wants to refer to England or the U.K., use England or the U.K. There's no need for Ireland to be grouped in with a foreign country, any more than there is an everyday need for Spain and Morocco to be considered as part of one entity, geographic, or otherwise.

That's my 2 cents.


----------



## curly

Fernando said:


> For the record, I find most amusing (or rather stupid), the following terms:
> 
> - America (meaning US)
> - North America (excluding Mexico)
> - Latin America (including Belize and Jamaica, inter alia). And not, Julius Caesar did not conquer Peru).
> 
> But I use them assuming everybody understand the right thing and they are used in other language other than mine, when there is a quite different tradition.


 Which is great for you. Apparently most people are aware of the distinction between America and Canada. Not many are aware of the Irish example.



Fernando said:


> There is something in the world beyond states and nations. As an example:
> 
> You can learn English in Europe, staying for a time in...


Ireland and the UK, be sure not to mix up the different visas or you could be in for an unpleasant surprise.


Fernando said:


> There is an awful and rainy weather in...


 North Western Europe, as well as god knows where else.


Fernando said:


> The ashes cloud is covering... and airports are closed in...


 Most of Europe, including Ireland, the UK, France, Spain, Portugal, Northern Italy...


Fernando said:


> Spanish Armada tried to return to Spain around...


Ireland I imagine. Or generally down the atlantic, around the west of Europe. Perhaps it would be more informative to say who/what they were trying to avoid?

EDIT: That infallible fountain of knowledge, Wikipedia,(no laughing now, please) tells me that 





> the fleet sailed into the Atlantic, past Ireland, but severe storms disrupted the fleet's  course.


 That doesn't seem unnecessarily convoluted, does it?

What exactly is the advantage of using the British Isles over the more accurate Ireland and the UK? The genuine and practical disadvantages have already been shown.


----------



## Fernando

Pedro y La Torre said:


> North America doesn't exclude Mexico, at least in English. And neither does Latin America include Belize or Jamaica. It only includes Latin-speaking countries, and on some rare occasions, Quebec.



The use of the terms is (or should be) the same in Spanish, but SISTEMATICALLY Mexico is excluded in most casual speech. About Latin America is so undefined that I  could hardly say which countries are included or not. There are several threads on that,



Pedro y La Torre said:


> In any case, none of those terms _include_ people who do not wish to be labelled as such.



Do you think Quebecoises are happy to be considered Latin Americans?



Pedro y La Torre said:


> Were you to start referring to Canadians as being from ''America'', although it might be technically correct in Spanish-speaking countries, chances are it would provoke a response.



I will note down that "British Isles" is not politically correct when used in Ireland.



Pedro y La Torre said:


> In any case, there's no need for it to be used, except, perhaps, in some geographical circles. If one wants to refer to England or the U.K., use England or the U.K. There's no need for Ireland to be grouped in with a foreign country, any more than there is an everyday need for Spain and Morocco to be considered as part of one entity, geographic, or otherwise.



Marocco and Spain are Mediterranean countries.

Algeciras (Spain) and Tanger (Marocco) are in Strait of Gibraltar.

I do not find "Strait of Gibraltar" or "Mediterranean countries" offensive at all.

As a matter of fact, Gibraltar is a Arab-related word. It means (in one interpretation) "the rock of Tarik", the Arab invader of Iberian Peninsula. We do not find we are endorsing any claim of Arab world on Spain.


----------



## Fernando

curly said:


> Apparently most people are aware of the distinction between America and Canada. Not many are aware of the Irish example.



I feel it is just the other way around.



curly said:


> What exactly is the advantage of using the British Isles over the more accurate Ireland and the UK?



Just because it is geographical and not political. I do not mind if Scotland or Wales or Hebrides or Cork get independence. Those isles will stay the same for the next million years.

The isle of Ireland was the same in 1910s and 1920s and will stay the same if N Ireland (or Ulster, that I NOTICE it IS a politically-charged word) gets a devolved government, gets independence or it forms a union with Greenland.

Anyhow, I am done. Since my comment referred to Spanish use (Islas Británicas) I am happy to accept a difference in the use in Ireland and in everywhere else, the same way that "América" (Spanish) means something different than "America" (English).


----------



## Einstein

My final two cents:
I've known Northern Irish Protestants, convinced Unionists, who in Britain have no problem about calling themselves Irish without even specifying Northern, but when travelling outside the "British Isles" call themselves British, as it's the passport that counts.
I think the only rule is that each population group should be called as it wants to be called and not as others want to call it.


----------



## elirlandes

Einstein said:


> I think the only rule is that each population group should be called as it wants to be called and not as others want to call it.



This is a universal truth that is the key to conflict resolution... people are what they think they are, no matter what way others wish to describe them. Once everyone else recognises and respects each other's personal perception of themselves, people tend to get along.

Northern Ireland has many people who feel British but who are not English, Welsh or Scottish. They can be nothing else but Irish, and that for them is not incompatible with being British.
Northern Ireland also has many people who simply feel Irish and who feel no connection to Britishness. So long as they each respect the other's right to feel as they do about themselves, there is no real reason for conflict - so long as neither imposes upon the freedoms of the other.


----------



## Einstein

elirlandes said:


> This is a universal truth that is the key to conflict resolution... people are what they think they are, no matter what way others wish to describe them. Once everyone else recognises and respects each other's personal perception of themselves, people tend to get along.


 
I only said:


> I think the only rule is that each population group should be called as it wants to be called and not as others want to call it.


It's a good rule if we want to be respectful but that's far from saying it's the solution to all ills (or even some). Usually a people's insistence on how it wants to be called is a symptom of historical resentment about oppression and exploitation. If Ireland had entered into a voluntary union with Britain on an equal basis, people would have far fewer problems about how they wanted to be called.


----------



## curly

Einstein said:


> Usually a people's insistence on how it wants to be called is a symptom of historical resentment about oppression and exploitation. If Ireland had entered into a voluntary union with Britain on an equal basis, people would have far fewer problems about how they wanted to be called.




This is true, but for various reasons.

 Obviously, if someone dislikes X for whatever reason, that person will dislike being associated with X. This is true of many armchair republicans and young people who "hate the English"  because of some vague memories of history class when someone said something about British colonisers. They will have a negative attitude to everything British that they don't like, and mysteriously forget about the British Premier League in Soccer and Coronation Street. 

Obviously, if Ireland had been happy to be in the UK it wouldn't have separated and there most likely wouldn't _be _any practical problems with people conflating the two terms, because British -as for the British in the north -would simply be an archaic term that isn't quite correct but to which nobody would give a second thought..

 But it _did _regain independence and there _are_ objective, non-emotionally driven problems for us when people conflate the two. And many Irish people will insist they aren't British with all the earnest passion of  a woman insisting she isn't grumpy just because she's menstruating.


----------



## L'irlandais

This is an old chestnut.  
Cardinal John Henry Newman's essay “*The Isles of the North*” was published back in 1852.  I quite like his idea though, that'd make us all "Northerners" eh.


----------



## berndf

Pedro y La Torre said:


> You can also be from N.I. and be nothing other than Irish - anyone born on the island of Ireland is entitled to an Irish passport and if you hold an Irish passport alone, as many in Northern Ireland do, I certainly wouldn't class you as British.


Are those people eligible to vote for the NI assembly and if so under which conditions?


----------



## elirlandes

berndf said:


> Are those people eligible to vote for the NI assembly and if so under which conditions?


Anybody from Northern Ireland, whether they consider themselves Irish or British, can vote for the NI assembly, as well as for a representative (MP) in the national parliament of the United Kingdom in Westminster (London).


----------



## berndf

elirlandes said:


> Anybody from Northern Ireland, whether they consider themselves Irish or British, can vote for the NI assembly, as well as for a representative (MP) in the national parliament of the United Kingdom in Westminster (London).


Well, I wasn't concerned about whether person considers himself Irish or British but under which condition a person is considered a UK citizen by Britain. Is every Irish citizen with residence in NI considered an British citizen and hence entitled to vote?


----------



## panjandrum

berndf said:


> Well, I wasn't concerned about whether person considers himself Irish or British but under which condition a person is considered a UK citizen by Britain. Is every Irish citizen with residence in NI considered an British citizen and hence entitled to vote?


You are confusing two things here: entitlement to vote, and citizenship.

The website of the Northern Ireland Electoral Office says that to be registered as entitled to vote in a UK election you need to meet the following criteria:_Each person should register at the address where he or  she is resident if they:_


_Are a British, Irish or Commonwealth citizen, or a citizen of a  Member State of the European Union. _
_Will turn 17 before publication of the next December Register._
_Have been resident in Northern Ireland for the past three months._
The significant point being that you do not need to be a UK citizen in order to vote in a UK election.


----------



## berndf

Yes, that was my original question. Thank you. Elirlandes also mentioned Westminster. There I would assume you needed UK citizenship to vote. Right?


----------



## elirlandes

berndf said:


> Yes, that was my original question. Thank you. Elirlandes also mentioned Westminster. There I would assume you needed UK citizenship to vote. Right?



Indeed this is not case - There is a reciprocal arrangement between the UK and Ireland in that citizens of each country who are resident in the other are able to vote for the national parliament of the country in which they are resident.

As such, an Irish citizen from Dublin, living in London has the right to vote for the national parliament of the UK. Similarly, a UK citizen, living in Dublin, has the right to vote in elections for the Dáil.


----------



## panjandrum

berndf said:


> Yes, that was my original question. Thank you. Elirlandes also mentioned Westminster. There I would assume you needed UK citizenship to vote. Right?


No, not quite.  Here is a more precise statement from the UK Electoral Commission.

*Who can register to vote?*


Anyone aged 16 or over (but you cannot vote until you are 18).
British or qualifying Commonwealth citizens. This means Commonwealth  citizens who have leave to remain in the UK or do not require such  leave.
Citizens of the Republic of Ireland or other European Union (EU)  member states.
 *Who can vote?*


British, Irish and qualifying citizens of Commonwealth countries  (including Cyprus and Malta) can vote at all elections.
Citizens of other EU member states resident in the UK can vote in  local government elections but cannot vote in UK Parliamentary  elections.
Those resident in Scotland or Wales may also vote in Scottish  Parliamentary or National Assembly for Wales elections.
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/elections/voter-registration


----------



## Schmizzkazz

panjandrum said:


> Northern Ireland citizens/subjects are British.
> They are entitled to carry British passports.
> They live in the British Isles.
> 
> Northern Ireland citizens/subjects are Irish.
> They are entitled to carry Irish passports.
> They live in Ireland.


 
Well said!


----------



## Paulfromitaly

panjandrum said:


> Northern Ireland citizens/subjects are British.
> They are entitled to carry British passports.
> They live in the British Isles.
> 
> Northern Ireland citizens/subjects are Irish.
> They are entitled to carry Irish passports.
> They live in Ireland.


Do Northern Ireland citizens have the option of carrying both a British and an Irish passport (like in the case of dual citizenship) or do they have to pick one of the two?
If the latter, are they allowed to change their mind and request the other passport at any moment in time?


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Paulfromitaly said:


> Do Northern Ireland citizens have the option of carrying both a the British and an Irish passport (like in the case of dual citizenship) or do they have to pick one of the two?
> If the latter, are they allowed to change their mind and request the other passport at any moment in time?



People from NI are entitled to an Irish and a British passport at all times. They can choose to hold one on its own, or both at the same time.


----------



## Kevin Beach

It isn't only residents of Northern Ireland who are entitled to an Irish passport. Anybody with at least one grandparent born anywhere on the island of Ireland can be a citizen of the Republic. My mother's parents were both born in Northern Ireland in th 19th century. I am therefore entitled to Irish citizenship even though my mother and I were both born and bred in England and I have visited the Republic only briefly.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

If you can play soccer, we'll still claim you Kevin.


----------



## L'irlandais

Einstein said:


> ...I think the only rule is that each population group should be called as it wants to be called and not as others want to call it.


Hi Einstein,
While I agree with the idea, you'd be surprised how many population groups on this planet are known by what others call them, rather that by their own chosen name.
To stick to an example related to this thread :  Etymology of the word *British*.
The original (Welsh) name _Pritani_ or _Priteni_ literally meant "painted people, in reference to the wode used by these _Picts_.  After the Roman conquest 43 AD this name was applied to all inhabitants of the larger Island.
So that today we refer to Anglo Saxon decendants as Britons or British.  Yet they did not choose the name of their race.

A further example, is that the _Welsh_ were themselves "baptised" so by the Anglo Saxons, the word means stranger/foreigner in Old English and in present-day Alsacian.


----------



## berndf

L'irlandais said:


> A further example, is that the _Welsh_ were themselves "baptised" so by the Anglo Saxons, the word means stranger/foreigner in Old English and in present-day Alsacian.


"Welsh" is in old Common-Germanic name for all sorts of Celts and sometimes for Latin-speakers.  That is why The French speaking Belgians are called "Wallons", the French-speaking Swiss "Welschschweizer" and the old German name for "Genua" is "Welschbern".


----------



## L'irlandais

berndf said:


> "Welsh" is in old Common-Germanic name for all sorts of Celts and sometimes for Latin-speakers.  That is why The French speaking Belgians are called "Wallons", the French-speaking Swiss "Welschschweizer" and the old German name for "Genua" is "Welschbern".


Hello berndf,
I agree, 





			
				myself said:
			
		

> The communes of Lapouterie/Val d'Orbey here in Alsace are known locally as "Pays Welsch", that is "Foreigner country". So called, because of a French speaking community who were installed there from the 16 century onwards. In German, the commune was originally called "Schnierlach" a reference to the alder trees growing there.


My point is that it's perhaps unusal for populations to chose their own appellation.
Hence my example of the people of Wales (who call themselves *Cymry* since 633 ad) are known in English as the *Welsh*, from the (Old English/) German word "_Welsch_" meaning "stranger" or "foreigner".


----------



## Einstein

L'irlandais said:


> Hello berndf,
> I agree,
> My point is that it's perhaps unusal for populations to choose their own appellation.
> Hence my example of the people of Wales (who call themselves *Cymry* since 633 ad) are known in English as the *Welsh*, from the (Old English/) German word "_Welsch_" meaning "stranger" or "foreigner".


There's also an opposite example: the Gaelic word for "foreigner" is "sassenach", which is derived originally from "Saxon".
As we see, the names of countries and nationalities, like other words, have an etymology that is often lost in the mists of time. In spite of their origin, these names are usually accepted by the population; I haven't heard English-speaking Welsh people object to the name Wales. However, if the majority of Welsh people decided they wanted to abolish the name Wales in favour of Cymru, also when speaking English, I would have no objection.
Having said this, I would not personally promote a campaign in favour of such a change because I wouldn't want to foster the illusion that changing a country's name could solve its economic and social problems!


----------



## franc 91

No it's even more complicated than that - The Channel Islands have the Queen as their sovereign and are independent of each other - they have their own banknotes for example and their own administrations. They are not part of the UK and they don't belong to the EU. The Isle of Man is in a simular situation. For the various overseas dependencies etc they do have British citizenship but they don't necessarily have right of abode in the UK - there are different levels of citizenship if you like. When I came to live permanently in France in 1974 - the UK had only just joined the Common Market and so I had to go to the British consulate in Paris to have - right of abode in the UK - stamped in my passport, otherwise the French authorities wouldn't accept it. (this is in answer to ampurdan) There are also arrangements in the UK for Irish citizens - for example they can vote. All across the UK there are large numbers of Irish people or people of Irish origin. In Glasgow for example there are two football teams - Celtic being the Irish-Scots one, and of course there's Liverpool. There were up until fairly recently Irish Lords who sat in the House of Lords in Westminster and of course in the British Army there are regiments of Irish Guards. In Dublin there are still several institutions called 'Royal'. So as you can see historical links of one kind of another are still very much in evidence.


----------



## Schmizzkazz

Einstein said:


> I think the only rule is that each population group should be called as it wants to be called and not as others want to call it.



What about this then:

Germany
Allemagne
Tyskland
Saksamaa
Niemcy
Deutschland

Here in Germany we have no problems with the fact that there are so many different names for Germany worldwide.


----------



## Einstein

Schmizzkazz said:


> What about this then:
> 
> Germany
> Allemagne
> Tyskland
> Saksamaa
> Niemcy
> Deutschland
> 
> Here in Germany we have no problems with the fact that there are so many different names for Germany worldwide.


That doesn't contradict what I said; if you're happy with all these names, then so be it! But there are others who for historical reasons are not so happy with the names given to them by others. I think they have a right to say so.


----------



## L'irlandais

Einstein said:


> There's also an opposite example: the Gaelic word for "foreigner" is "sassenach", which is derived originally from "Saxon"...


Hello Einstein,
Your example here is incorrect, *Sasanach* simply means_ "Englishman"_, rather than meaning "foreigner".
In Irish either *coimhthíoch *(stranger/outsider) or *eachtrannach* (foreigner/alien) can be used, depending on context.
Personally, I cannot see people all over the planet wanting to learn that "*Eireannach*" is the local term for our people ;  that and the use of the English label _"Irishman"_ doesn't bother me in the slightest.

"Scot" was originally a term of abuse used in Old English (plural Scottas), yet the Scottish are proud of that name today.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

L'irlandais said:


> "Scot" was originally a term of abuse used in Old English (plural Scottas)



Probably because it meant Irish.


----------



## Einstein

L'irlandais said:


> Hello Einstein,
> Your example here is incorrect, *Sasanach* simply means_ "Englishman"_, rather than meaning "foreigner".


Well, it's what I always thought too, but I read somewhere a long time ago that it was widened out to mean "foreigner" in general. But that was only once, so I accept the correction, especially from a native Irishman!


----------



## curly

Schmizzkazz said:


> What about this then:
> 
> Germany
> Allemagne
> Tyskland
> Saksamaa
> Niemcy
> Deutschland
> 
> Here in Germany we have no problems with the fact that there are so many different names for Germany worldwide.



As far as I can see, these are all different words describing the same thing. No-one using these names is saying that you're French. It's hardly comparable to the difference between calling someone Irish or British. 

It's not the name which is important, it's the meaning.


----------



## Brioche

berndf said:


> Are those people eligible to vote for the NI assembly and if so under which conditions?



Irish citizens have full voting rights in *all* UK elections under exactly the same conditions as British citizens. Irish citizens may join the UK civil service, or the police, they may join any of the British armed forces, and may stand for election to the British parliament.
They have always had these rights.

If elected to the British Parliament in Westminster, they must swear allegiance to the Queen before taking their seat in parliament. There is no requirement to become British citizens.


----------



## Brioche

Einstein said:


> That doesn't contradict what I said; if you're happy with all these names, then so be it! But there are others who for historical reasons are not so happy with the names given to them by others. I think they have a right to say so.



Every language is entitled to its own vocabulary - and that includes the names given to geographical features. The Irish can call Japan _An tSeapáin, _and Germany _An Ghearmáin _if they like. It's nothing like what the Japanese or German call their homelands. And the Chinese can call Tokyo _Dong Jing, _it's their language.


----------



## Brioche

Kevin Beach said:


> To clarify the complication even more, I am British because I was born in England to British parents (well, my father was born in Canada of British parents, but that's another story). However, my mother's parents were born in Northern Ireland. Under the constitution of the Irish Republic (i.e. southern Ireland), everybody who has at least one grandparent born anywhere on the island of Ireland (i.e. north or south) is entitled to Irish citizenship. I could therefore apply to be recorded as a citizen of the Irish Republic and to receive an Irish passport (as well as my British one) even though I have been to the Republic only three or four times and have never been to the north!
> 
> Now, that's an _Irish_ clarification.



If you want to, you can still register your birth with the Irish Embassy, and have an Irish passport. 

It's too late now [I presume!] but if you had done this before you had children, you could have registered the births of your children with the Irish Embassy, and they too could be Irish citizens.
Then if your children registered the births of your grandchildren with the Irish Embassy, they too  would have Irish citizenship.

Under the current law, there is no limit to this passing on of Irish citizenship by this method.

With British Citizenship, if a British citizen who was born in Britain has a child overseas, then that child has British citizenship. However, that overseas-born child cannot pass British citizenship on to the next generation - unless the next generation is born in UK.


----------



## Frank78

Brioche said:


> If elected to the British Parliament in Westminster, they must swear allegiance to the Queen before taking their seat in parliament.



That's why elected Sinn Fein MPs do not occupy their won seats.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Brioche said:


> If you want to, you can still register your birth with the Irish Embassy, and have an Irish passport.
> 
> It's too late now [I presume!] but if you had done this before you had children, you could have registered the births of your children with the Irish Embassy, and they too could be Irish citizens.
> Then if your children registered the births of your grandchildren with the Irish Embassy, they too  would have Irish citizenship.
> 
> Under the current law, there is no limit to this passing on of Irish citizenship by this method.
> 
> With British Citizenship, if a British citizen who was born in Britain has a child overseas, then that child has British citizenship. However, that overseas-born child cannot pass British citizenship on to the next generation - unless the next generation is born in UK.



I guess that's why I regularly come across Irish passport holders with everything from American to French accents on my travels.


----------



## WME

Hi

I came here as I was discussing the scope of the term "British" on another thread, and found this very helpful diagram.



Now can anybody tell me why there is a difference in scope between the British Isles and the British Islands ???
I have never been able to understand the difference between an isle and an island, and now I have a concrete example...


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

British Islands are islands belonging to the sovereign state known as the United Kingdom, and the Crown Dependencies (Isle of Man and the Channel Islands).

The British Isles is a geographical term encompassing Great Britain, Ireland, and all their adjoining islands. Many Irish people dispute the validity of the term British Isles, and the Irish government does not officially recognize it or use it.


----------



## L'irlandais

An old chestnut it seems.
In the diagram, the word islands, is used in relation to the channel islands, as far as I can see.

I agree with Pedro, their are those who prefer the term "The Isles of the North" to "The British Isles". 
Ireland has been known as Hibernia long before (320BC) it was ever slighted as the island of _"Little Britain", _presumably slighted by some little travelled Monarch or other. (1603 AD)


----------



## ampurdan

I always thought Great Britain was called that because Ireland was smaller (and Albion somehow has not caught on), but maybe it was in relation to Britanny?


----------



## L'irlandais

You're correct.  The term was first used during the reign of King James I of England (James VI of Scotland)to refer to the larger of the two Islands.  However his motivations were political, since he was trying to justify how two countries with separate parliaments might have one and the same Monarch (albeit, a  single monarch with two different titles.)

However Ireland was only added to the equasion by the Act of Union of 1801
Since 1921 the need for a precision of "Northern" Ireland came about.


----------



## Stoggler

I thought Great Britain was in contrast to "little" Britain, or Brittany.

Or in French: Bretagne v Grande-Bretagne.

I hadn't heard of Ireland being considered "little" Britain before.


----------



## stormwreath

The term 'British Isles' is over 2000 years old, and pre-dates the existence of either Ireland or Britain as states by many centuries. Ptolemy's _Geographia_ refers to the _Bretanikai nēsoi,_where 'nesoi' is Greek for 'Islands', and similar expressions - sometimes with an initial P- instead of B- - are found in earlier works.

The earliest known use of the expression 'Great Britain' to refer to the largest of the British Isles comes from the 12th century, where it was written in Latin as _Britannia major, _or in Norman French as _grant Bretaigne_. The term was indeed used to distinguish Great Britain from Brittany in France, rather than from Ireland. Britanny was referred to as _Britannia minor_, _Bretagne menur_  or _meindre Bretaigne_ in the same 12th-century sources. However, 'Great Britain' remained a fairly obscure term until 1604, when King James VI/I chose to describe himself as "King of Great Britain" rather than "King of England and Scotland".

Ireland has never been referred to as 'Little Britain'. For a time in the 18th century when it was fashionable to call Scotland 'North Britain', a few people jokingly called Ireland 'West Britain'; but that never caught on.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

stormwreath said:


> The term 'British Isles' is over 2000 years old, and pre-dates the existence of either Ireland or Britain as states by many centuries. Ptolemy's _Geographia_ refers to the _Bretanikai nēsoi,_where 'nesoi' is Greek for 'Islands', and similar expressions - sometimes with an initial P- instead of B- - are found in earlier works.
> 
> The earliest known use of the expression 'Great Britain' to refer to the largest of the British Isles comes from the 12th century, where it was written in Latin as _Britannia major, _or in Norman French as _grant Bretaigne_. The term was indeed used to distinguish Great Britain from Brittany in France, rather than from Ireland. Britanny was referred to as _Britannia minor_, _Bretagne menur_  or _meindre Bretaigne_ in the same 12th-century sources. However, 'Great Britain' remained a fairly obscure term until 1604, when King James VI/I chose to describe himself as "King of Great Britain" rather than "King of England and Scotland".
> 
> Ireland has never been referred to as 'Little Britain'. For a time in the 18th century when it was fashionable to call Scotland 'North Britain', a few people jokingly called Ireland 'West Britain'; but that never caught on.



West Britain might not have caught on, but West Brits abound.


----------



## Schmizzkazz

Einstein said:


> I don't know how many people would agree with you! It also raises the question of why they are called the British Isles; is it purely geographical, meaning the group of islands of which Great Britain is the largest, or is it political, meaning the group of islands over which Great Britain claimed sovereignty?!



Some people always confuse two things:


a) how things should be
b) and how things  are


----------



## L'irlandais

The United Kingdom is a (unitary) sovereign state.  Great Britain is an Island.

So for my money, sovereignty relates to the United Kingdom and not to Great Britain.
I hope this doesn't just add to the confusion.


----------



## Schmizzkazz

I would call the island just Britain - not Great Britain.

And: Britain + Ireland = the British Isles


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

You're not wrong, but many Irish people will object to the term British Isles.


----------



## L'irlandais

Great Britain (sometimes just referred to as ‘Britain’)
Technically, if you lose the ‘Great,’ Britain only refers to England and Wales.
Source : ordnance survey blog

British Isles = Great Britain + Ireland + about 5000 other smaller islands of the coasts of both of these. 

 Geography Matters!


----------



## Stoggler

L'irlandais said:


> Great Britain (sometimes just referred to as ‘Britain’)
> Technically, if you lose the ‘Great,’ Britain only refers to England and Wales.
> Source : ordnance survey blog



I've seen that webpage before and, frankly, I don't believe that little paragraph about Britain being just England and Wales. I've never seen that assertion anywhere else and I have never heard anyone use Britain in that way. 

Unfortunately the writer of that webpage doesn't give any explanation why Britain could mean just England and Wales.

The rest of the page is fine though.


----------



## ewie

L'irlandais said:


> Technically, if you lose the ‘Great,’ Britain only refers to England and Wales.


This is news to me too


Pedro y La Torre said:


> You're not wrong, but many Irish people will object to the term British Isles.


Curiously, I've never heard anyone in England object to the term _Irish Sea_


----------



## merquiades

I learnt that Great Britain is a direct Latin translation of _Britannia Maior_ (larger Britain) which contasts it from _Britannia Minor_ (smaller Britain) which was northen France, as seen in the name Brittany today.


----------



## Doraemon-

British Isles: British Isles - Wikipedia


----------



## Doraemon-

merquiades said:


> I learnt that Great Britain is a direct Latin translation of _Britannia Maior_ (larger Britain) which contasts it from _Britannia Minor_ (smaller Britain) which was northen France, as seen in the name Brittany today.


Not exactly.
For the Romans Britannia was only Great Britain (both the island ant the southern part they conquered), and not northern France at all (Gallia).
At the time of the anglosaxon/germanic invasion of Great Britain some invaded celtic britons moved to/invaded current Britanny (Bretagne, Breizh), taking this name (Britannia Minor) because they came from Britannia, such as later "New England".
But not northern France, in general.


----------



## AutumnOwl

L'irlandais said:


> I agree with Pedro, their are those who prefer the term "The Isles of the North" to "The British Isles".


Does this mean an annexation of the Faroe Islands, Iceland, Jan Mayen, Svalbard and Greenland? I think the Nordic countries would protest.


----------



## L'irlandais

Have no fear AutumnOwl John Henry Newman was a peaceful man, he was referring to the "islands of Britannia and Hibernia"


----------

