# Great Britain, United Kingdom, England



## supercrom

Please, I have a question for <you> all, members

I don't know what is the difference among UK (United Kingdom), GB (Great Britain) and England.

I have a feeling about UK, maybe it means a United Kingdom, many nations united in a country.

And I also see different flags:





UKGBUKGBUKGBUKGB


 
Thanks in advance.

*CROM*


----------



## Javier-Vega

What I understand is that Great Britain is the big island composed by England, Scotland and Wales. While the United Kingdom is the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (which is in another island, coexisting with the independent republic of Ireland). 
I believe that the official name is "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", but maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## Neru

Good question, Crom:

As Javier has said, UK = The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland : this is the name of the actual sovereign state.

Great Britain = England, Scotland and Wales.

So, there are 4 different countries within the UK : England, Scotland, Wales (Great Britain) and Northern Ireland (which is, geographically speaking, part of the island of Ireland).

This is the English flag:






This is the Scottish one:






This is St.Patrick's cross (originally used to represent Ireland) :







If you combine the three together then you get the UK flag (the Union Flag):







Also there is the Welsh flag (not included in the Union Flag, as you can see)...







 ...and the Northern Irish flag (which is basically just the English flag, with the emblem of the 'Red Hand of Ulster' (a province in the north of Ireland) included:







...I hope this explains it for you.


----------



## Outsider

England: the country South of Scotland and East of Wales.

Great Britain: Island where England, Wales, and Scotland are located

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: nation composed by England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.


----------



## Neru

Here is a map anyway:


----------



## Javier-Vega

Thinking about it, I have two more doubts:

(a) Is Tony Blair the PM in the UK or only in England?

(b) I understand that Canada, Australia, New Zealand and many other countries are supposed to be subdits of the Queen of England. But they don't belong to the UK, right? What's the name of that wider entity? the Commonwealth?


----------



## Cath.S.

Tony Blair is the British PM.


----------



## Philippa

Javier-Vega said:
			
		

> I understand that Canada, Australia, New Zealand and many other countries are supposed to be subdits *subjects?* of the Queen of England. But they don't belong to the UK, right? What's the name of that wider entity? the Commonwealth?



Yep, Javier, you're right - the Commonwealth. 
Saludos
Philippa 

Oh and Crom, sorry I never answered properly when you asked me about this UK, GB England thing


----------



## ~PiCHi~

Neru said:
			
		

> This is the English flag:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the Scottish one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is St.Patrick's cross (originally used to represent Ireland) :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you combine the three together then you get the UK flag (the Union Flag):


 
SO Interesting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   

I'm a big fan of *EVERYTHING* related to the UK, and I had no idea about all that!
I have to read more!!!  
I love to learn new things


----------



## dave

And don't forget *the British Isles * - a geographical rather than political term which decsribes the whole of the island of Ireland as well Great Britain (i.e. England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland).

This whole issue can be very confusing, particularly in the world of sport:

- In the Olympic Games we compete as Great Britain, *not * the United Kingdom (even though our team includes athletes from Northern Ireland).

- In the Commonwealth Games the four home nations (i.e. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) compete as independent nations, as they also do in football.

- In rugby union, England, Scotland and Wales compete as independent nations, however Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland come together and compete simply as Ireland (no doubt this infuriates the N. Irish unionists)

- In rugby league, there is both an England team as well as Great Britain team!

- In cricket, we compete as England although this also includes players from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (even more confusingly Scotland does have a cricket team as well, although it deosn't have full international status in the world of cricket - there is one player who plays both for England and Scotland!)

Hope that clears things up!


----------



## dave

Almost forgot - there is also the complicated political/constitutional status of a number of other places such as the Isle of Mann and the Channel Islands. Unfortunately my knowledge is not sufficient to provide an accurate explanation - any takers?


----------



## Neru

Dave: As far as I know, they come under the British Crown but are not actually part of the UK...
Although maybe some constitutional expert can explain it better because I'm not even too sure what that actually means.


----------



## Neru

~PiCHi~ said:
			
		

> SO Interesting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> I'm a big fan of *EVERYTHING* related to the UK, and I had no idea about all that!
> I have to read more!!!
> I love to learn new things


You should come and visit us one day.


----------



## Benjy

ok. so about the isle of man. click here and also from the same site but dedicated to the system of gouvernment. i found out a few interesting things myself 

and yes pichi.. come to the uk we have tons of decent non pervy guys


----------



## ~PiCHi~

Neru said:
			
		

> You should come and visit us one day.


Believe me I will, actually, it is kind of a goal for me, visit England even if it's one week, but I can't die if I don't go!



			
				Benjy said:
			
		

> and yes pichi.. come to the uk we have tons of decent non pervy guys


 
Thanx Benjy, I defenitely will go someday. Hope dies last!
I'm sure there must be some decent non pervy guys  at least one.. 
I don't mind if he's Scottish, english or Irish.. O lov'em all! (Specially scots' accent!!)


----------



## renel

(b) I understand that Canada, Australia, New Zealand and many other countries are supposed to be subdits of the Queen of England.

Don't you dare assimilate Canada with England or Great Britain or the UK . In 1980 Canada rapatriated her constitution and became a "totally" independant country with no ties whatsoever with the UK. We do have our own queen, the Queen of Canada whose name just happens to be Elisabeth Windsor. 

When she comes here she is the Queen of Canada and when she is in the UK the Queen of England.

Now the one million dollars question: If Canada never had a queen before and Elisabeth Windsor is the first Canadian monarch, does that make her Elisabeth the First or is she still Elisabeth the Second?

ps - However, Canada is still part of the Commonwealth, which status has somewhat changed over the years. It is now more of a UK common market.


----------



## supercrom

Thanks a lot, Neru!

 Don't worry about it, Philippa.

 Now I can differentiate among the three concepts...







 Thanks again!

*CROM
*
P.S. I also found this map.


----------



## temujin

hi

There is also one additional term: "Britain" (not Great Britain) which is - rather confusing - the same as the UK. I.e. Britain is actually bigger than Great Britain.
And now: If you say British, do you mean "of Britain" or of "Great Britain" ?


t.


----------



## mirandolina

Don't EVER make the mistake of referring to a native of Scotland as an Englishman!


----------



## Edwin

mirandolina said:
			
		

> Don't EVER make the mistake of referring to a native of Scotland as an Englishman!



In Scotland does the line go, ''fe fi fo fum I smell the blood of a Scotsman" ?


----------



## mirandolina

Edwin said:
			
		

> In Scotland does the line go, ''fe fi fo fum I smell the blood of a Scotsman" ?


 
No, Jack was a foolish Englishman, no canny Scotsman would give away a cow for a bag of beans!


----------



## zebedee

temujin said:
			
		

> hi
> 
> There is also one additional term: "Britain" (not Great Britain) which is - rather confusing - the same as the UK. I.e. Britain is actually bigger than Great Britain.
> And now: If you say British, do you mean "of Britain" or of "Great Britain" ?
> 
> 
> t.



Really? I thought Britain was just a way of saying Great Britain for those of us who need to place our tongues firmly in our cheeks in order to say the "Great" part.


----------



## Helicopta

zebedee said:
			
		

> Really? I thought Britain was just a way of saying Great Britain for those of us who need to place our tongues firmly in our cheeks in order to say the "Great" part.


 
A lot of people get the wrong idea about the 'Great' in Great Britain (even here). It doesn't actually mean great as in wonderful or magnificent but great as in large. This is because there are in fact two "Britain"s: the island of Britain in the British Isles and the land of Britain in France. In French these are known as Grande Bretagne and Bretagne, in English as Great Britain and Brittany. 

Maybe now you can take your tongue out of your cheek?


----------



## zebedee

Helicopta said:
			
		

> Maybe now you can take your tongue out of your cheek?



As you can see by where I've put I'm from in my personal profile, the tongue-in-cheek comment was...well...tongue-in-cheek!
I'm continually suprised actually by how many people here in Valencia use "Londres" and "Inglaterra" interchangeably. Many's the time I've been asked after a trip back home: "¿Qué tal por Londres?" "So how was London?". When I ask them if they live in Madrid, the penny drops...

cheers,
zeb

PS: I'm also a Spike Milligan fan. May I boldly suggest a little correction to your Spanish translation?: "¡Veis, os dije que estaba enfermo!"


----------



## Helicopta

Aah, so my post was wasted on you then!
Oh well, maybe it'll prove useful to someone, it's just that i was once asked (in the USA): "So what's so goddam great about Great Britain then?"

Please note: correction appreciated and acted upon.


----------



## munchkin5000

zebedee said:
			
		

> I'm continually suprised actually by how many people here in Valencia use "Londres" and "Inglaterra" interchangeably. Many's the time I've been asked after a trip back home: "¿Qué tal por Londres?" "So how was London?". When I ask them if they live in Madrid, the penny drops...


 
Well, when i was in Mexico last year, it took so long trying to explain to everyone that i was british and not just engish (my mother's side of the family are Scots are a damn proud of it) that I just gave up!  Yes i'm english was the easiest answer.  But as someone said before, you never call a Scot english. my mum hit the roof when she found out.......


----------



## Edwin

munchkin5000 said:
			
		

> Well, when i was in Mexico last year, it took so long trying to explain to everyone that i was british and not just engish (my mother's side of the family are Scots are a damn proud of it) that I just gave up!  Yes i'm english was the easiest answer.  But as someone said before, you never call a Scot english. my mum hit the roof when she found out.......



Well, when it comes up why not just identify yourself as a *Scot* (soy escocés) and say you are from *Scotland*(soy de Escocia) ---and don't mention England or UK or Britain or ....?


----------



## mirandolina

I certainly do!  But then I lived in Scotland whereas Munchkin lives in England! 





			
				Edwin said:
			
		

> Well, when it comes up why not just identify yourself as a *Scot* (soy escocés) and say you are from *Scotland*(soy de Escocia) ---and don't mention England or UK or Britain or ....?


----------



## seventhsign

Hi, I'm new to here. What always confuses me is the differences among the following words:

United Kingdom
Great Britain or Britain
England
Anyone could explain what these words cover geographically, when they are usually used, or anything else that could better explain them.
Many thanks!


----------



## JLanguage

seventhsign said:
			
		

> Hi, I'm new to here. What always confuses me is the differences among the following words:
> 
> United Kingdom
> Great Britain or Britain
> England
> Anyone could explain what these words cover geographically, when they are usually used, or anything else that could better explain them.
> Many thanks!


 
England - Only includes the southern part of Great Britain, the territory known as England.

Great Britain or Britain - The entire island off the coast of Western Europe, includes England, Wales, and Scotland. 

United Kingdom, full name: The United Kindom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. So the UK is Britain+N. Ireland


----------



## irishstu

JLanguage is completely correct.

I wish more people bothered to find out the difference. There's no excuse to be calling a Scotsman "English", for example. In fact it could be quite dangerous. 

As for the difference between Great Britain and the United Kingdom, so many people outside of the UK don't know the difference, which can quite often leave us Northern Irish feeling somewhat left out.

Once again, thanks for asking this question. The more people that know the difference, the better. When I was living in Spain, the lady at the police station wrote that I was from Great Britain on my residence card. I tried to explain that Great Britain did not include Northern Ireland, but she just got angry with me.


----------



## mnzrob

I'm embarassed to say, that I also did not know the exact difference between GB and UK either, so i'm really glad this question was asked.
Learned something that I had been wondering about for a while.
Thanks!

Rob


----------



## lsp

A very lengthy post about this can be found here.


----------



## panjandrum

I went through that link, and there are several misunderstandings I feel compelled to clear up.

1.  Tony Blair is PM of the UK, the British PM - see (3).  He is not PM of Great Britain (alone).

2.  HRH is Queen of the UK and Head of the Commonwealth, a voluntary association of 53 independent countries. She is also Queen of a number of other Commonwealth realms, including Australia, New Zealand and Canada. 

3.  UK citizens are British (formal nationality) - hence (1), because the Parliament in London is the UK Parliament.

4.  The British Isles are Great Britain and Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.  We would love to have Brittany back again 

You see, its's simple really.


----------



## cuchuflete

God Bless George III for sparing us this confusion. I'll send Ms. Spears right over. You are welcome to it. Shall we call it reparations for the war of 1812, when you had the good sense to burn Washington, D.C.?


----------



## Fernando

Cuchu, who/what is Ms Spears?


----------



## panjandrum

Fernando said:
			
		

> Cuchu, who/what is Ms Spears?


    Taking time to recover from the shock: this site should bring you up to date


----------



## Fernando

Sorry; I simply could not associate Britney Spears, being in the same sentence than George III and a reference to the war of 1812.


----------



## jess oh seven

yes, you should *never* refer to the United Kingdom as "England". England is just one of the countries that makes up the UK, along with Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.


----------



## cuchuflete

Fernando said:
			
		

> Cuchu, who/what is Ms Spears?



Panj said, "  We would love to have Brittany back again" so I offered it (!) to him with joy and alacrity.

cheers,
Cuchu


----------



## Fernando

I do not share your distaste for Britney. I can adopt her if you do not want HER.


----------



## panjandrum

Fernando said:
			
		

> Sorry; I simply could not associate Britney Spears, being in the same sentence than George III and a reference to the war of 1812.


I can understand your incredulity, but sometimes it is necessary to make allowances for the the most amazingly juvenile sense of humour of some apparently mature foreros I mean, they don't even _sound_ the same 

I see that you have done so a post or two later 

I should leave you to negotiate her extradition with cuchu


----------



## QUIJOTE

I enjoyed this thread, I learned some more stuff about England and the UK and the flags some history as well. Thank you all.


----------



## seventhsign

Thanks very much for all of you for explaining the differences amony these items. 

By the way, the sentence UK is made up of 4 "countries" also makes me confused. Is the word "country" same as its normal meaning? Eg, we say Japan is a "country", China is a "country", can we say "UK is a country"? or, is "countries making up UK" somewhat like "province in other countries"? 
I don't know if I presented clearly, hope some of you could provide explanation.

Many thanks!


----------



## Fernando

seventhsign, the definition of what a 'country' is, is elusive. You will find a lot of controversial opinions on what a nation, a country or an state is.

Scotland, Wales, England and Ireland were independent kingdoms in the Middle Ages, united under a king.

In continental Europe, France got rid of the 'kingdom' system to be based on more rational 'provinces' approach. French Revolution extended this system through continental Europe, while UK maintained (at least, on a formal point of view) the 'feudal' approach (a king over 4 kingdoms or 'countries').

Every British has the right to hit me on the head because of any incorrection I had said.


----------



## Outsider

I suppose it all comes down to the fact that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have specific cultures, and a certain degree of political autonomy, within the U.K.


----------



## elroy

Outsider said:
			
		

> I suppose it all comes down to the fact that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have specific cultures, and *a certain degree of political autonomy*, within the U.K.



Which brings up an important question.

People say that England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are different countries, but that the UK is also one country.  How is this possible?  What exactly do we understand by "country" here?  In the UN, the UK is considered one country, correct?  In light of that, what is it that makes them each a separate "country" - as opposed to states or provinces?

I was well aware of the differences between the terms introduced in the first post, but this "country" dilemma I have not still not been able to figure out.


----------



## desde aquel verano

Hi. I'm not too sure about what the correct technical defintion of a country is (if such a thing exists), but as someone from the UK I've definitely always thought of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as different *countries* within the same state... although thinking about it, I don't know of anywhere else where this happens in the same way.
Just to add that Wales is often referred to as a *principality*, and Northern Ireland (which has only actually existed since 1920) as a *province*.
Hmm, perhaps FIFA might be interested in reading this thread because they've been trying to convince us for years that we should only have one national football team in the UK.


----------



## elroy

desde aquel verano said:
			
		

> Hi. I'm not too sure about what the correct technical defintion of a country is (if such a thing exists), but as someone from the UK I've definitely always thought of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as different *countries* within the same state... although thinking about it, I don't know of anywhere else where this happens in the same way.
> Just to add that Wales is often referred to as a *principality*, and Northern Ireland (which has only actually existed since 1920) as a *province*.
> Hmm, perhaps FIFA might be interested in reading this thread because they've been trying to convince us for years that we should only have one national football team in the UK.



Well, it would make sense, wouldn't it?  After all, Basques and Galicians don't have their own team, do they?   

Still confused...


----------



## foxfirebrand

And we want that rock back!  The Elgin Marble, I think it's called.


----------



## Whodunit

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> God Bless George III for sparing us this confusion. I'll send Ms. Spears right over. You are welcome to it. Shall we call it reparations for the war of 1812, when you had the good sense to burn Washington, D.C.?



VEEEERY off-topic. But I couldn't resist to correct such an intelligent person: She's called M*r*s. Spears, isn't she?


----------



## desde aquel verano

elroy said:
			
		

> Well, it would make sense, wouldn't it?


I suppose so . That aberration only really exists because we already had international football matches here before the game became popular elsewhere.
Incidentally, FIFA had some pretty serious problems when the Soviet Union broke up (and later Yugoslavia) deciding who they were going to allow into the association.
By the way, there is actually a Basque national team, the "Euskal Selekzioa", although obviously they are not officially recognised and only play 'friendly' matches as such. (Out of curiosity, do you have an equivalent of this in Palestine?)
Anyway, I'm still a bit confused about the country thing too, but I'll check back tomorrow to see what pearls of wisdom have turned up.  
Cheers.


----------



## elroy

desde aquel verano said:
			
		

> I suppose so . That aberration only really exists because we already had international football matches here before the game became popular elsewhere.
> Incidentally, FIFA had some pretty serious problems when the Soviet Union broke up (and later Yugoslavia) deciding who they were going to allow into the association.
> By the way, there is actually a Basque national team, the "Euskal Selekzioa", although obviously they are not officially recognised and only play 'friendly' matches as such. (Out of curiosity, do you have an equivalent of this in Palestine?)
> Anyway, I'm still a bit confused about the country thing too, but I'll check back tomorrow to see what pearls of wisdom have turned up.
> Cheers.



I believe there is a Palestinian national team but it, of course, is not recognized either (with the possible exception of Arab countries) since Palestine itself isn't recognized as a country!


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> VEEEERY off-topic. But I couldn't resist to correct such an intelligent person: She's called M*r*s. Spears, isn't she?



Ms. can be used for any woman.

Mrs. is used if she's married, Miss if she's single. 

No one really refers to her as Ms./Mrs./Miss Spears, at least not on a daily basis or anything, which is probably why Cuchu chose the neutral Ms.


----------



## lsp

elroy said:
			
		

> Ms. can be used for any woman.
> 
> Mrs. is used if she's married, Miss if she's single.
> 
> No one really refers to her as Ms./Mrs./Miss Spears, at least not on a daily basis or anything, which is probably why Cuchu chose the neutral Ms.


That would have to be Mrs. Federline.


----------



## panjandrum

Coming back to the point

Within the UK, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are sometimes referred to as the "home countries" or the "home territories".  In some ways they function in relation to the UK rather as states or provinces do elsewhere.  

It is interesting to note that we now have a UK Parliament, a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh Assembly of Government (what wag thought of that one), and a Northern Ireland Assembly (suspended).

Those who refer to Northern Ireland as a province are mistaken.  There are four provinces in Ireland: Ulster, Munster, Leinster and Connaught.  Northern Ireland consists of six of the nine counties of the province of Ulster.  

Is that all clear now?


----------



## foxfirebrand

Isn't there also a Church of Scotland, with some kind of status as a national church?  My family lore has it that the Queen of England is a member but not the titular head-- which if true, would imply a parity of sorts with the Church of England.  I was also brought up believing the English monarch is bound by an oath of some kind, preserving the primacy of the Kirk in Scotland?

More to the point, re "nationhood," isn't there also a Bank of Scotland?  It's been 40 years since I was on the old sod, but I could swear the Scots even issued their own currency.

If I'm accurate about any of this, especially if the Bank of Scotland is still printing money-- doesn't that make that place a country in every sense of the word, even something perilously like a nation?


----------



## Whodunit

lsp said:
			
		

> That would have to be Mrs. Federline.



Okay, agreed.


----------



## timpeac

I always thought "country" was synonymous with "state". So I would say that England is a country being part of the alliance that is the UK. So England is to the UK what Florida, say, is to the US. I suppose that does suggest the question are the UK and the US countries? We certainly consider them so in normal speech, but are they officially? I don't know.


----------



## panjandrum

I'm ducking the country and nation debate - because it will go on forever unless you agree on a definition of country and nation.

But banks, now - yes, the Bank of Scotland is able to print its own UK Sterling banknotes - as can the Bank of Ireland, the Northern Bank and the Ulster Bank.  There was a time when these were not readily accepted in England, but there are now so many of us over there, and so many of them over here, that these non-English banknotes are recognised and accepted almost everywhere.


----------



## elroy

panjandrum said:
			
		

> Coming back to the point
> 
> Within the UK, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are sometimes referred to as the "home countries" or the "home territories". In some ways they function in relation to the UK rather as states or provinces do elsewhere.
> 
> It is interesting to note that we now have a UK Parliament, a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh Assembly of Government (what wag thought of that one), and a Northern Ireland Assembly (suspended).
> 
> Those who refer to Northern Ireland as a province are mistaken. There are four provinces in Ireland: Ulster, Munster, Leinster and Connaught. Northern Ireland consists of six of the nine counties of the province of Ulster.
> 
> Is that all clear now?


 
So the term "country" in this case refers, in effect, to the equivalents of states or provinces in other countries.  

Nevertheless, most UK citizens, when asked what country they are from, will say England, Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland (or Ireland in the latter case).

Very intriguing.


----------



## elroy

timpeac said:
			
		

> I always thought "country" was synonymous with "state". So I would say that England is a country being part of the alliance that is the UK. So England is to the UK what Florida, say, is to the US. I suppose that does suggest the question are the UK and the US countries? We certainly consider them so in normal speech, but are they officially? I don't know.


 
Yes, in practice England is to the UK what Florida is to the US.

The US and the UK are just as much countries as any other official countries in this world.  That's why the term "country" for England, Scotland, etc. is rather contradictory.  After all, you have a UK passport, not an English one, just as Americans have a US passport, not a Floridian one.

I don't know of any other "national alliance," so to speak, in which the member territories are referred to as countries.

That's why I find the nomenclature so intriguing.


----------



## panjandrum

> Yes, in practice England is to the UK what Florida is to the US.


That is only partly true.  Each of the four countries making up the UK has a different relationship with the central UK political institutions.

We are at risk of causing confusion by over-simplification.

Enthusiasts looking for details of UK Government at all levels, including international, should find this official Guide to Government useful.


----------



## foxfirebrand

elroy said:
			
		

> I don't know of any other "national alliance," so to speak, in which the member territories are referred to as countries.


 
You'd enjoy studying Russia-- a mare's nest of "nationality okrugs," autonomous ethnic regions, and fullblown Republics, in addition to many another category of political unit, some with real "sovereignty" (on paper anyway, a little like American Indian Reservations).  The Tatar region is "governed" by permantly-empaneled bilateral treaty negotiators, who decide everything on an ad hoc basis without ever defining what kind of sub-region of the Russian Federation Tataria even is.  There'd be hell to pay if the Tatars went the way of Chechnya.  This is Russia itself I'm talking about, not the dissolved Union of Soviet Republics, or the Confederation of former Soviet states, whatever it's called.  Interesting times ahead for Russia.

I hope this all reflects, by analogy, on the topic in question.  The semantics of national subdivisions is still the beast under study.  Apartheid-era SA had "countries" within a nation also, and another inadequately-defined such relationship exists, right inside the Commonwealth-- Québec, _vis-à-vis_ Canada.


----------



## timpeac

elroy said:
			
		

> Yes, in practice England is to the UK what Florida is to the US.
> 
> The US and the UK are just as much countries as any other official countries in this world. That's why the term "country" for England, Scotland, etc. is rather contradictory. After all, you have a UK passport, not an English one, just as Americans have a US passport, not a Floridian one.
> 
> I don't know of any other "national alliance," so to speak, in which the member territories are referred to as countries.
> 
> That's why I find the nomenclature so intriguing.


 
Well yes, as you suggested above, I would say the country I was from is "England". The idea of the UK being a country is quite strange to me. It may be called that for ease of simplification in the world setting where its interests are seen as one, and thus comparable with those of say France, but I think in the way the people feel about it the UK is quite an artificial construct. If someone said to me "what does it mean to be English" I would have quite a lot to say. If someone said "what does it mean to be british?" , I would not quite know what to say. And if someone said "what does it mean to be from the UK?" I would know even less what to answer.

I take no responsibility (and no more interest than, say, in that of France or Germany) in the history and present day views and actions of Scotland, Wales and NI other than that which I am forced to do (since we share a political system to some degree). I would vote for a devolved English system if they would care to ask us. Please let me point out that I have nothing against the other countries, I just see little point in the union (and one that they seem to resent mightily too).

I hope that's not too off topic. I write it here simply because I believe that if there is any conflict over the meaning of country here then the meaning taken by the majority of peopl must win out over the usage which is probably made to make the UK comparable with France, Germany etc on the international scene where we view them as comparable entities.


----------



## timpeac

panjandrum said:
			
		

> That is only partly true. Each of the four countries making up the UK has a different relationship with the central UK political institutions.
> 
> We are at risk of causing confusion by over-simplification.
> 
> Enthusiasts looking for details of UK Government at all levels, including international, should find this official Guide to Government useful.


 
Panj, I'm sure you're quite right, you seem to know a very large amount on this subject. However, I'm not sure that we are _over_-simplifying - simplifying certainly - since the political machinations of the different political systems around the world are so very complicated that you just have to simplify to compare. Even more so when we are doing this from a linguistic point of view since generally we are linguists rather than political analysts. 

I'm not claiming that the relationship between England and the UK is identical to that of Florida and the US, just saying that it is similar enough to allow a meaningful linguistic comparison of the terms "state" and "country" (since it is indisputable that Florida is a state and if we can equate state with country this implies that England is a country, and therefore if the UK is also called a country then it is this usage which is incongruous - that was what I was trying to do).


----------



## Outsider

elroy said:
			
		

> I don't know of any other "national alliance," so to speak, in which the member territories are referred to as countries.


Well, there is the Basque Country in Spain, although sometimes that term is used in a broader sense, in which it includes also parts of France...


----------



## panjandrum

timpeac said:
			
		

> However, I'm not sure that we are _over_-simplifying - simplifying certainly - since the political machinations of the different political systems around the world are so very complicated that you just have to simplify to compare.


Point taken   Like I said earlier, I ought to duck the country/nation debate


----------



## foxfirebrand

I think I'm still on the topic of language here, in making a point that I'm pretty sure hasn't been covered-- political and geopolitical terms have different meanings for people of differing political views, even within the same language.

So a country is one thing to a solid-citizen type, and another to a revolutionary or a separatist.  I mentioned the case of Québec, the most salient example I think in my neck of the woods (which is out in "the country," by the way).

Some diehard loyal sons and daughters of Dixie refuse to concede defeat, and consider the South to be a country in the nationalist sense.  That's why flying the Confederate battle standard, or a State flag with that emblem embedded in it, is such a hot-button topic in some quarters.  I'm not being figurative here-- many northerners would be surprised if they could take an accurate survey on the question.

American states aren't countries, but Hawaii used to be a kingdom, and Texas was an independent nation right up to the time it appled for statehood.  Some Texas chauvinists call their state a sovereign country, and not facetiously. 

We also have separatists other than the latent Johnny Rebs.  The topic of "Aztlan" is coming up more and more lately, and there is an indigenous and across-the-border movement seriously bent on reclaiming territory Mexico lost to the U.S. back in 1848, and declaring full nationhood for the American Southwest.  Sympathizers in the UN exist for this cause, both conniving and overt.

The use of the word _country_ in senses other than the official and constitutional, as in "country cousin" and "if that ain't country..." is a clearly separate area of discussion about the term, but I think it does confuse the issue slightly, especially in AE.  Or maybe that's just a recent, "red states" thing.


----------



## seventhsign

Thanks for all. Although I am feeling difficult to understand EVERYTHING you discussed here, I could still get some sense of the topic. It's right that making it crystal clear seems to be difficult unless you think as exactly as what government thinks. But I found the discussion here really helpful for those, who are learning english as second language, like me, in undertanding the terms that we never learned from class.


----------



## panjandrum

seventhsign said:
			
		

> Thanks for all. Although I am feeling difficult to understand EVERYTHING you discussed here, I could still get some sense of the topic. It's right that making it crystal clear seems to be difficult unless you think as exactly as what government thinks. But I found the discussion here really helpful for those, who are learning english as second language, like me, in undertanding the terms that we never learned from class.


 What a charming, gracious, and diplomatic response


----------



## elroy

timpeac said:
			
		

> Well yes, as you suggested above, I would say the country I was from is "England". The idea of the UK being a country is quite strange to me. It may be called that for ease of simplification in the world setting where its interests are seen as one, and thus comparable with those of say France, but I think in the way the people feel about it the UK is quite an artificial construct. If someone said to me "what does it mean to be English" I would have quite a lot to say. If someone said "what does it mean to be british?" , I would not quite know what to say. And if someone said "what does it mean to be from the UK?" I would know even less what to answer.
> 
> I take no responsibility (and no more interest than, say, in that of France or Germany) in the history and present day views and actions of Scotland, Wales and NI other than that which I am forced to do (since we share a political system to some degree). I would vote for a devolved English system if they would care to ask us. Please let me point out that I have nothing against the other countries, I just see little point in the union (and one that they seem to resent mightily too).
> 
> I hope that's not too off topic. I write it here simply because I believe that if there is any conflict over the meaning of country here then the meaning taken by the majority of peopl must win out over the usage which is probably made to make the UK comparable with France, Germany etc on the international scene where we view them as comparable entities.


 
Good points.  I never really thought about the international-local contrast, but it seems to make sense to me.  I suppose you don't feel "United Kingdomer" in the way that a Bavarian, despite immense regional identity, feels German.  Nevertheless, the UK is one entity on the international level.

Intriguing, intriguing, intriguing...


----------



## elroy

foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> You'd enjoy studying Russia-- a mare's nest of "nationality okrugs," autonomous ethnic regions, and fullblown Republics, in addition to many another category of political unit, some with real "sovereignty" (on paper anyway, a little like American Indian Reservations). The Tatar region is "governed" by permantly-empaneled bilateral treaty negotiators, who decide everything on an ad hoc basis without ever defining what kind of sub-region of the Russian Federation Tataria even is. There'd be hell to pay if the Tatars went the way of Chechnya. This is Russia itself I'm talking about, not the dissolved Union of Soviet Republics, or the Confederation of former Soviet states, whatever it's called. Interesting times ahead for Russia.
> 
> I hope this all reflects, by analogy, on the topic in question. The semantics of national subdivisions is still the beast under study. Apartheid-era SA had "countries" within a nation also, and another inadequately-defined such relationship exists, right inside the Commonwealth-- Québec, _vis-à-vis_ Canada.


 
This sounds like something I don't want to delve into.  And I thought things were complicated only in Israel/Palestine/West Bank/Gaza Strip/East Jerusalem/West Jerusalem/Occupied Territories/Disputed Territories/pre-1967 borders/Golan Heights....!


----------



## elroy

Outsider said:
			
		

> Well, there is the Basque Country in Spain, although sometimes that term is used in a broader sense, in which it includes also parts of France...


 
Correct.  As far as I know, "el país vasco" is simply a "comunidad autónoma" when considered within the borders of Spain.


----------



## elroy

foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> I think I'm still on the topic of language here, in making a point that I'm pretty sure hasn't been covered-- political and geopolitical terms have different meanings for people of differing political views, even within the same language.
> 
> So a country is one thing to a solid-citizen type, and another to a revolutionary or a separatist. I mentioned the case of Québec, the most salient example I think in my neck of the woods (which is out in "the country," by the way).
> 
> Some diehard loyal sons and daughters of Dixie refuse to concede defeat, and consider the South to be a country in the nationalist sense. That's why flying the Confederate battle standard, or a State flag with that emblem embedded in it, is such a hot-button topic in some quarters. I'm not being figurative here-- many northerners would be surprised if they could take an accurate survey on the question.
> 
> American states aren't countries, but Hawaii used to be a kingdom, and Texas was an independent nation right up to the time it appled for statehood. Some Texas chauvinists call their state a sovereign country, and not facetiously.
> 
> We also have separatists other than the latent Johnny Rebs. The topic of "Aztlan" is coming up more and more lately, and there is an indigenous and across-the-border movement seriously bent on reclaiming territory Mexico lost to the U.S. back in 1848, and declaring full nationhood for the American Southwest. Sympathizers in the UN exist for this cause, both conniving and overt.
> 
> The use of the word _country_ in senses other than the official and constitutional, as in "country cousin" and "if that ain't country..." is a clearly separate area of discussion about the term, but I think it does confuse the issue slightly, especially in AE. Or maybe that's just a recent, "red states" thing.


 
I like this.  It makes me feel a lot better about calling Palestine a country - an issue you wouldn't imagine the difficulty of dealing with.  My profile used to say "Palestine," now it says "Israel [Palestinian]", only because I am an Israeli citizen (it never said just "Israel"; that's too misleading) - and it might change without advance notice.  

I don't want to start a discussion on Israel/Palestine here (we all know better  ) - suffice it to say that the intricacy of responses and angles my question has led to goes to show how fundamentally ambiguous - indeed, indefinable - the term _country_ is.


----------



## Outsider

Just for curiosity's sake, here's what the Wikipedia says about "country", "nation" and "state". It's interesting how they emphasize the "ethnic" aspect of nationhood. I would have described that as a "people" rather than a "nation", myself...


----------



## María Gabriela

If England, Wales and Scotland are countries, What is GB? A country with 3 more countries inside? How is it defined?


----------



## clipper

María,

Being English (or British) and understanding the difference between England, Great Britain and The United Kingdom (as I´m sure you do too) I think you will have to wait a while for a convincing answer to this one as I have no idea. 

My suspicion, although it won´t be a popular one, is that technically, England, Wales and Scotland aren´t individual countries.......... Here commences the argument  .


----------



## Masood

María Gabriela said:
			
		

> If England, Wales and Scotland are countries, What is GB? A country with 3 more countries inside? How is it defined?


I believe that GB (Great Britain) is the _physical/geographical_ island on which I live (so consists of England, Scotland and Wales). The UK also includes Northern Ireland.


----------



## María Gabriela

I thought they were individual countries. So,...are they like 'provinces' of GB? Don´t they have independent governments?
I was sure GB and Northern Ireland form the UK. That´s why I wonder if GB is a 'country' itself.
If you ARE English, clipper, and you don´t know...I´m NOT so ashamed!!!


----------



## oscarlami

Masood said:
			
		

> I believe that GB (Great Britain) is the _physical/geographical_ island on which I live (so consists of England, Scotland and Wales). The UK also includes Northern Ireland.


 
That's absolutely rigth. The French from Brittany invaded the isle in the middle ages and they call it "Great Brittany", later Great Britain.

The "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" referrs to those territories as ONE kingdom.

In the UK people referr to Scotland, Walles and Northern Ireland as "the nations". They are nations, but they are no longer kingdoms. They have no estate by themselves. That may be the difference between countries and nations. You can have nations with or without a estate. 

Regards,


----------



## El Estudiante

This is what wikipedia says about the subject:
*Great Britain*

*From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.*

_For an explanation of often confusing terms like_ England_,_ (Great) Britain _and_ United Kingdom _see *British Isles (terminology).*_
 Great Britain lies between Ireland and continental Europe.


*Great Britain* is an island lying off the north-western coast of Europe, comprising the main territory of the United Kingdom (UK). _Great Britain_ is also used as a political term describing the combination of England, Scotland, and Wales, the three countries which together comprise the entire island and including some outlying islands. _Great Britain_ is also widely, but incorrectly, used as a synonym for the sovereign state properly known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.


----------



## María Gabriela

So,...can we say that GB is a country with 3 nations? Isn´t England the most important? (I mean, the central power is there)


----------



## cuchuflete

Would all of you be happier if I put this in the Culture forum, or shall we leave it here to attract more BE expert attention?

There have been other threads on this topic.  Please try the Search function.

God save the Queen!
(Though from what, I'm not at all sure.  Hmmmmmm)

Cuchuflete


----------



## modgirl

El Estudiante said:
			
		

> *From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.*




Something that is very important to understand is that Wikipedia is a public encyclopedia. Anyone can edit any page! I'm not kidding. Try it. As such, I would not trust its information.

I have seen the original question posed to professionals in geography, and they all seem to agree that England, Wales, and Scotland are not "countries" but rather geographical areas that make up Great Britain. The United Kingdom is a country that includes Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Although not an official British source, here is a source of information from the US government:  http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/uk.html

Here's another source (though not as great as I'd hope):  http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzuk.htm


----------



## modgirl

A few British sites:

http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/britain.html

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/countryfacts/unitedkingdom.html

I also recall one time, when sending a package to England, the US post office couldn't find it in the list to determine rates.  The postal employee said that although we all know where England is, official information is usually found under the name of the official country:  UK  (which, obviously, includes Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland).  So now, instead of writing "London, England" when I address an envelope, I write "London, United Kingdom."  I prefer the former, but I'll write the latter, just so nothing will slow down my correspondence!


----------



## Jose Carlos

Hi,

I am at the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, in Brazil, and what I know about England is that it is a political unit of a country called United Kingdom of Great Britain and North Ireland, a country whose prime minister is Tony Blair. England, Scotland, Wales, and North Ireland are under Blair's authority. And UNO only recognizes a country called UK ( the full name is above). But a question has to be asked to FIFA, that is,  why does FIFA accepts England and Scotland, for instance, as different countries in the World Cup  competition?

Jose Carlos


----------



## mjscott

Yes! Yes! The World Cup and how many teams your country can have is interminably more important than whether or not England is a country or a nation comprising part of the United Kingdom!


----------



## El Estudiante

modgirl said:
			
		

> [/b]
> 
> Something that is very important to understand is that Wikipedia is a public encyclopedia. Anyone can edit any page! I'm not kidding. Try it. As such, I would not trust its information.
> 
> I have seen the original question posed to professionals in geography, and they all seem to agree that England, Wales, and Scotland are not "countries" but rather geographical areas that make up Great Britain. The United Kingdom is a country that includes Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
> 
> Although not an official British source, here is a source of information from the US government:  http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/uk.html
> 
> Here's another source (though not as great as I'd hope):  http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzuk.htm



Hello modgirl,

I know how Wikipedia works, and I believe that it is valuable source of information and a very worthy endeavor. In addition to being available in numerous languages, all of the information is free for sharing under the GNU Free Documentation License. You are entitled to your opinion, but in this case I think that your criticism of Wikipedia is without merit. I hope that you will agree that The Encyclopedia Britannica is a very well respected encyclopedia, written by some of the best scholars in the world. Here is The Encyclopedia Britannica article about Great Britain:
 
 Great Britain
Student Encyclopedia Article Page  1  of 1

               Technically, Great Britain is one of the two main islands that make up the British Isles. By this definition it includes the countries of England, Scotland, and Wales. 

 Popularly, Great Britain is the shortened name for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This includes England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. (See also British Isles; United…

****

 As you can see, The Encyclopedia Britannica agrees with Wikipedia and refers to the "countries" of England, Scotland, and Wales. If you believe that Wikipedia is wrong, then you must also believe that Britannica is wrong.


----------



## modgirl

El Estudiante said:
			
		

> I hope that you will agree that The Encyclopedia Britannica is a very well respected encyclopedia, written by some of the best scholars in the world.


 
Absolutely -- no doubt. It's also true that many well-respected scholars disagree. Quite frankly, this may be a case of which scholars we want to believe! 

I will respectfully disagree about Wikipedia, however.

Edit:  Your referenced site was a student version and did not give the noun for Great Britain.  Is Great Britain a country that contains the countries of Scotland, England, and Wales?  Unfortunately, it left me with more unanswered questions.


----------



## modgirl

Please refer to this page:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer

*WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY**Wikipedia* is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups who are developing a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection and World Wide Web browser to alter its content. *Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by professionals with the expertise necessary to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information.*


*Edit:  This software sure does like to edit out web pages!  Just go to the bottom of almost any page on Wikipedia and click on "disclaimer."*


----------



## El Estudiante

Hello modgirl,

As I stated in my previous post, I know how Wikipedia works, including their legal framework. Now, please refer to the Terms of Use of The Encyclopedia Britannica:

Disclaimer of Warranties: THE SERVICES AND ALL INFORMATION, PRODUCTS, AND OTHER CONTENT INCLUDED IN OR ACCESSIBLE FROM THE SERVICES ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND (EXPRESS, IMPLIED, AND STATUTORY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE), ALL OF WHICH BRITANNICA EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW.

Limitation of Liability: IN NO EVENT SHALL BRITANNICA, ITS DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, SHAREHOLDERS, PARENTS, SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES, AGENTS AND LICENSORS, OR CONTENT PROVIDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO THE USE, INABILITY TO USE, PERFORMANCE OR NONPERFORMANCE OF THE SERVICES, EVEN IF BRITANNICA WAS PREVIOUSLY ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES AND REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SUCH DAMAGES ARISE IN CONTRACT, TORT, UNDER STATUTE, IN EQUITY, AT LAW, OR OTHERWISE.

As you can plainly see, The Encyclopedia Britannica also disavows all warranties regarding the content of their encyclopedia.


----------



## modgirl

But it's my understanding that the Encyclopedia Britannica is written by professionals.  Wikipedia is not; it is a public encyclopedia.  I understand the disclaimer by Britannica, but it is different from Wikipedia.

Britannica doesn't want someone to read about a certain gymnastic act, break a leg from attempting the maneuver, and then sue Britannica because the person read about it in the encyclopedia!

The two disclaimers are quite different.  To my knowledge, Britannica is not written by volunteers.  But, I don't know that for a fact.  If it's true, then I would definitely not count it as any more of a credible source than Wikipedia, which everyone writes!


----------



## panjandrum

PLEASE CLICK HERE for the most recent thread on this subject.

This thread links to previous threads and also to 
http://www.direct.gov.uk/Gtgl1/GuideToGovernment/fs/en

The Official UK Government site's pages explaining the official answers to many of your questions.

Now, for fun, I'll work backwards through the thread:


> Is Great Britain a country that contains the countries of Scotland, England, and Wales?


 Great Britain is an island containing those countries.


> Popularly, Great Britain is the shortened name for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.


 I am not sure where this is popular, certainly not in the UK. Please do not make this mistake.
_



			Great Britain is also used as a political term
		
Click to expand...

 _Great Britain is a geographical term, not a political term.

Ah - I was just about to say what modgirl has just said about the wiki vs brittanica.


----------



## modgirl

Great website, pan!

To quote from it:

The full title of this *country* is the *United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland*. The UK is made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Great Britain (or just Britain) does not include Northern Ireland. The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are not part of the UK.

The UK government is an official "enough" of a source for me.


----------



## El Estudiante

Hello modgirl,

As I have stated twice already, I know how Wikipedia works. I know that it is written by volunteers. I am certainly not claiming that Wikipedia is a scholarly authority, nor that its content should be considered authoritative. In contrast Britannica is written by professionals, and can be cited as an authority. About this, we do not disagree. Nonetheless, the Britannica disclaimer clearly states that the information itself is not guaranteed. I understand fully the very different natures of the two encyclopedias. Nonetheless, I think that Wikipedia is valuable, even with its deficiencies. This is my personal opinion. I recognize that your opinion is different. We can agree to disagree. 

Returning to the subject of The United Kingdom of Great Britain: It is composed of countries within a country as Wikipedia correctly stated. Here is the official explanation from the UK government:

*Countries within a country*

The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Its full name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Great Britain, however, comprises only England, Scotland and Wales. Great Britain is the largest island of the British Isles. Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic form the second largest island.

  The UK is just under 1,000 km long from the south coast of England to the extreme north of Scotland, and is 500 km across at its widest point. It shares a single land border with the Irish Republic. Despite its relatively small size the UK boosts incredibly varied and often very beautiful scenery.

 The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are not part of the United Kingdom. They are largely self-governing with their own legislative assemblies and systems of law. But the British Government is responsible for their defence and international relations.

 On this site the term 'Britain' is used informally to mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Read on to find out more about how England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are administered.

*******

As you can see, the Official Government statement is that it is four countries within a country.


----------



## modgirl

Well, apparently there are two "official" UK governments, and they don't say the same thing!

If they're confused, what are the rest of us supposed to think?


----------



## Brioche

There is only one citizenship in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is called *British citizenship*, and the passports issued by the government of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland are called *British Passports*.

Not surprisingly, many people think that the country which calls all its citizens British is Britain.

Now just to totally confuse you, according to the Ireland Act of 1949, although the Republic of Ireland is not part of the dominions of the sovereign of the United Kingdom of GB and NI, Ireland is NOT a foreign country.

So citizens of Ireland can vote in the UK, stand for public office, &c.


----------



## El Estudiante

modgirl said:
			
		

> Great website, pan!
> 
> To quote from it:
> 
> The full title of this *country* is the *United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland*. The UK is made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Great Britain (or just Britain) does not include Northern Ireland. The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are not part of the UK.
> 
> The UK government is an official "enough" of a source for me.





			
				El Estudiante said:
			
		

> Here is the official explanation from the UK government:
> 
> *Countries within a country*
> 
> The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Its full name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland...




Hello modgirl,

Please note carefully that the snippet that you quoted does not deny the fact that there are four countries within a country. It does not address that question at all. Whereas the document that I quoted does address that issue directly, and it does so authoritatively. The two quotes do not disagree. The reference that I quoted is more complete, and settles the matter.

Cheers


----------



## panjandrum

I thought, when I was confused by this conversation at 4am, that all would be clear in the morning.   It isn't really, but then the nature of the UK can easily be confusing.  You will be glad to know that, in the unforgettable words of Queen Victoria:
*"We are not confused."*

As I said back a bit in answer to:
_Is Great Britain a country that contains the countries of Scotland, England, and Wales?_ 
*Great Britain is an island containing those countries.*

You will also find that Britain is used to refer to the whole of the United Kingdom.

I am glad to see that as usual my government is swinging in behind my opinion 

For information, I am from Northern Ireland. There are various eccentricities about the relationship between the UK and Ireland - I believe Brioche is right about Irish citizens resident in the UK having the right to vote in UK elections.
Another quirk is that those born in Northern Ireland, UK subjects, are also entitled to hold Irish passports.
Some choose to do this for political motives, some because it amuses them, some because they find the Irish more welcome abroad than the English


----------



## Jose Carlos

Hi,

Mjscott, I'm not saying that one thing is more important than the other. When I refer to FIFA, I want to say that there is some different viewpoints by some institutions concerning England being a country or not. If I'm wrong, sorry, but your words sounded (read) as an ironic comment. We don't have more than one team in the competition, it's impossible. So when FIFA recognizes two teams for the same country, 
it means that FIFA sees this question differently( of more than one country in UK), and probably other organizations do the same.


----------



## cuchuflete

I'm so confused I decided to draw pictures.  Is this it, more or less?


----------



## panjandrum

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> I'm so confused I decided to draw pictures. Is this it, more or less?


~~Chuckle~~
Good try cuchu. I can't swear to the voting rights of Irish Citizens bit - I think it's right - and for some careless reason although Great Britain is the island, Britain is often used as an alternative for the UK as a whole - ie all British people.

I wonder should I mention that the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey and other Channel Islands are not part of Britain, Great Britain or the UK.

They are, on the other hand, part of the British Isles - which includes all of Ireland as well as England, Scotland and Wales.

Got that?

I am, at this point, having serious difficulty typing this as I roll on the floor holding my sides in laughter. Boy are we good at making life difficult for johnny foreigner. It's not only the English, it's the Geography, the History, the Maths - in fact the whole gory curriculum.

It has to be a conspiracy.


----------



## Brioche

panjandrum said:
			
		

> They are, on the other hand, part of the British Isles - which includes all of Ireland as well as England, Scotland and Wales.



The British Isles is a rather dated usage.  It was fine when all of Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. (1801 to 1922)

The Irish these days generally reject the notion of the British Isles, seeing it as an imperialist concept.


----------



## cuchuflete

Brioche said:
			
		

> The British Isles is a rather dated usage. It was fine when all of Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. (1801 to 1922)
> 
> The Irish these days generally reject the notion of the British Isles, seeing it as an imperialist concept.



Ahhhhh, delightful.  Now we are back to revisionist linguistics!

If the collective of islands are not the 'British Isles', a geographic term, then what would those Irishmen have us call them?


----------



## cuchuflete

panjandrum said:
			
		

> Boy are we good at making life difficult for johnny foreigner.
> 
> It has to be a conspiracy.



Must be the same conspirator who called my country by an Italian derived name, leading to extraordinarily long threads about the use of the word América for a country name, and two or three continents.  At least you Brits-English-Irish-Welch-Scotsmen don't have to defend yourselves for usurping and abusing a name...which in fact was imposed on you by people from another continent.

I think the real conspiracy is the one Modgirl highlighted: collusion between your government and the US Postal Service to create more undeliverable mail.


----------



## panjandrum

Brioche said:
			
		

> The British Isles is a rather dated usage. It was fine when all of Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. (1801 to 1922).
> The Irish these days generally reject the notion of the British Isles, seeing it as an imperialist concept.


Indeed indeed, hence the British and Irish Lions.  But it lives on as a general term of geography in places less sensitive to the politics. For example, here.


----------



## Helicopta

Jose Carlos said:
			
		

> A question has to be asked to FIFA, that is, why does FIFA accepts England and Scotland, for instance, as different countries in the World Cup competition?


Jose Carlos really hit on something when he mentioned football. The way the UK is united in/divided by sport is very peculiar and only serves to add to the general confusion as it differs depending on which sport you're referring to!

Before I get onto football, here are the main others:

Cricket: The England cricket team, although rarely referred to as such, is actually the England _and Wales_ cricket team. Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own teams but rarely play England because the sport is not played to the same level in those countries.

Rugby: Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland compete as one Irish team. England, Scotland and Wales have separate teams. There is also a touring team formed from all four sides called the British and Irish Lions, although they only play special tournaments and not in competitive matches such as the world cup.

Athletics and other Olympic sports: We compete as Great Britain although it's technically the UK as it includes Northern Ireland. Except in the commonwealth games and domestic competitions, where we compete separately.

And as for football... 
We *always* compete separately. Football is the most popular sport here and quite simply, a UK football team is not something that is wanted by the supporters from *any* of the nations. There would be an outcry if it were ever seriously suggested. Despite the fact that a team drawn from the best players from all four nations would be a stronger team, when it comes to football, the fierce but (mostly) friendly rivalry that exists between us is far more important! Football matches between the nations are always greatly anticipated and passionately contested, and nobody wants to see an end to that. 
In the Olympic Games, you will see that we never field a team in the football competition. The reason for this is that FIFA have said that if we were to do so, we would have to compete as Great Britain in *all* football tournaments, including the world cup.


Well, I hope that's cleared it up for you all!


----------



## foxfirebrand

Well this whole thread is entirely too simplistic and uncontroversial. Time to introduce the notion of ethnicity.

The confusion over whether "British Isles" slights the idea of Irish independence, both as a nation and as a people, has raised this issue for me.

Great Britain, of course, is only called "great" for the same reason that the great anteater is so called-- to distinguish it from another anteater of lesser size. If it weren't so, the French would never call your country _Grand Bretagne,_ not even grudgingly-- it's the "other" _Bretagne,_ not the smaller one that is located, of course, in France. I know Bretagne isn't a _Département_, and I'm told they don't have provinces any more-- it used to be a Duchy, I think.

Anyway, the Bretons from one _Bretagne_ and the Britons from the other are/were both Celtic people, as are/were the inhabitants of all the UK countries/nations except England, whose people are of several Germanic tribes-- except for the many Celts who've lived there for centuries, including Irish, Welsh, Cornish, Manx, Scots and, I suppose, vestigial Britons and even Bretons-- many ventured over during the chaotic times preceding and following the Norman Conquest. The Normans, of course are Frenchmen descended from Rollo the Dane. And I won't even get into the Danelaw, which has to do with the ethnicity of the northern part of England and the Border Counties-- uh, as well as the Lowlands of Scotland, but I digress.

The point is, "Britain" harks back to the Celtic commonality of many/most people who inhabit those isles-- as an emigrant son of these same peoples, I think I can opine that resenting "British Isles" as a vestige of _English_ (let's not get into Anglo-Saxon) Imperialism is stretching a point, even picking a fight.

So who wants to have at it? Step up, one at a time or all at once. We Normans had you all whipped, and retired undefeated. Why no "nation" on British/UKese soil that reflects *our* presence in your unworthy mists?

Yes, mists. Oh wait, maybe it's _Roman_ Imperialism everyone's so het up about-- it was a mere province back then, and of course they called it _Britannia. _ Uh, and _Caledonia..._ and _Hibernia..._


----------



## se16teddy

egueule said:
			
		

> Tony Blair is the British PM.


 
No! To be accurate (which we are trying to be in this thread) Tony Blair is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.  (Though arguably he is not Prime Minister of any particular place, but Prime Minister to HM the Queen.)


----------



## emma42

Renel, Renel, don't get so angry.  It's not supercrom's fault.  Elizabeth Windsor isn't Queen of Canada (!) she is Queen of Great Britain and the Commonwealth.  If you want to talk republicanism (as opposed to monarchy) I'm right there with you.

Supercrom, if it's any consolation, most British people don't know what all the terms mean, either!


----------



## se16teddy

renel said:
			
		

> Now the one million dollars question: If Canada never had a queen before and Elisabeth Windsor is the first Canadian monarch, does that make her Elisabeth the First or is she still Elisabeth the Second?


 
The same issue affects Scotland: many Scots are irritated that she is called 'the second' in respect of Scotland.  Scotland hadn't had a queen called Elizabeth before.


----------



## emma42

Many English are irritated that she is called anything other than Betty Windsor.


----------



## se16teddy

dave said:
			
		

> Almost forgot - there is also the complicated political/constitutional status of a number of other places such as the Isle of Mann and the Channel Islands. Unfortunately my knowledge is not sufficient to provide an accurate explanation - any takers?


 
Well, here's a start.  

Neither the Isle of Man (only one n) nor the Channel Islands are part of the UK. They are not represented in the Westminster Parliament (though historically speaking the Channel Islands are the last remnant of the Crown's possessions in France). The Queen in Parliament occasionally legislates in the Channel Islands with their consent, but reserves the right to legislate there without their consent (but then, not being subject to any written constitution, the Queen in Parliament reserves the right to legislate anywhere on Earth, or beyond it for that matter.) 

You don't need to show a passport when travelling between the UK, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, but then you don't need to show a passport when travelling between the Republic of Ireland and these countries either.


----------



## panjandrum

Yawning gently, and pointing out that teddy picked up on a thread 15 months old.
Search around, fellow-Brits, and you should find threads that explain the mystical relationships among the various entities that make up our United Kingdom.


----------



## Blackleaf

dave said:
			
		

> :
> 
> - In the Olympic Games we compete as Great Britain, *not *the United Kingdom (even though our team includes athletes from Northern Ireland).


In the Olympics, our team represents the whole of the UK (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), but we don't call it the UK team, although we should do.

- 



> In rugby union, England, Scotland and Wales compete as independent nations, however Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland come together and compete simply as Ireland (no doubt this infuriates the N. Irish unionists)


In rugby union, there is an England team, a Scotland team, a Wales team, and an Ireland team (playing for both Northern Ireland AND Republic of Ireland) and there is a Great Britain team which plays for the whole of the UK AND the Republic of Ireland.  So the Great Britain team plays for all the nations of the British Isles, including the Republic of Ireland.




> In cricket, we compete as England although this also includes players from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (even more confusingly Scotland does have a cricket team as well, although it deosn't have full international status in the world of cricket - there is one player who plays both for England and Scotland!)


 
The "England" cricket team is actually the England and Wales cricket team. It doesn't play for Scotland and Ireland, who both have their own cricket teams.


----------



## Blackleaf

emma42 said:
			
		

> Renel, Renel, don't get so angry. It's not supercrom's fault. Elizabeth Windsor isn't Queen of Canada (!) she is Queen of Great Britain and the Commonwealth. If you want to talk republicanism (as opposed to monarchy) I'm right there with you.
> 
> Supercrom, if it's any consolation, most British people don't know what all the terms mean, either!


 
Elizabeth II IS the Queen of Canada.  In fact, she is no more the Queen of England as she is the Queen of Canada.  Of all the countries of which she is Queen, she doesn't belong to England more than she belongs to any other nations.  She is equally the Queen of all the nations of which she is Queen.  She's as much Canada's as she is ours.


----------



## Blackleaf

> Supercrom, if it's any consolation, most British people don't know what all the terms mean, either!


 
It's quite simple.  Great Britain consists of England, Scotland and Wales.  The United Kingdom consists of Great Britain (England, Scotland, Wales) and Northern Ireland.

And England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are NOT countries, in the way that France or Italy are countries.  The actual country is the United Kingdom, and England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are just nations.


----------



## dalek

se16teddy said:
			
		

> Tony Blair is the *British* PM.


 


			
				se16teddy said:
			
		

> *No*! To be accurate (which we are trying to be in this thread) Tony Blair is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. (Though arguably he is not Prime Minister of any particular place, but Prime Minister to HM the Queen.)


Just a tad pedantic, don't you think? 
"British" is the accepted _gentilicio _for people from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland...but I guess we could call ourselves United Kingdomers, or something...if we wanted to be super anal about it.


----------



## se16teddy

Blackleaf said:
			
		

> And England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are NOT countries, in the way that France or Italy are countries. The actual country is the United Kingdom, and England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are just nations.


 
The word 'country' is vague and 'independent state' is not its only meaning.  The West Country, the North Country, England, Scotland, Britain and the United Kingdom are all countries.


----------



## se16teddy

dalek said:
			
		

> Just a tad pedantic, don't you think?
> "British" is the accepted _gentilicio _for people from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland...but I guess we could call ourselves United Kingdomers, or something...if we wanted to be super anal about it.


 
I don't accept that it is pedantic to try use labels precisely in this very sensitive area. And at all the meetings I have attended (on tax issues) at EU and international level, the UK has always been referred to as such, and its representatives as the 'UK delegates' or similar, and not as British.


----------



## panjandrum

Newcomers may be taken aback to find that this thread is now sitting on top of the two previous threads that discussed the same topic.

Please take a look back at the earlier discussions, which included many links to official sources.

Understanding the relationships between the various elements that make up the UK, the British Isles, Britain - and more - is a life-time study for natives. I wish you all well.

It's boring, I know, to point to the official line, but the UK Government page:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/Gtgl1/GuideToGovernment/fs/en
might be one of the most useful sources for official definitions.


----------



## se16teddy

dave said:
			
		

> - In rugby union, England, Scotland and Wales compete as independent nations, however Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland come together and compete simply as Ireland (no doubt this infuriates the N. Irish unionists)


 
And a rugby team called the 'British and Irish Lions' plays and tours regularly, selected from top British and Irish players.  (It was formerly called more carelessly the 'British Lions').  http://www.lionsrugby.com/


----------



## panjandrum

se16teddy said:
			
		

> And a rugby team called the 'British and Irish Lions' plays and tours regularly, selected from top British and Irish players. (It was formerly called more carelessly the 'British Lions'). http://www.lionsrugby.com/


You're right, it was careless - but very few people cared.
The Lions were supported enthusiastically across the islands even before they quite properly changed their name.


----------



## dalek

se16teddy said:
			
		

> I don't accept that it is pedantic to try use labels precisely in this very sensitive area. And at all the meetings I have attended (on tax issues) at EU and international level, the UK has always been referred to as such, and its representatives as the 'UK delegates' or similar, and not as British.


Half of my family is from Northern Ireland (west of the Bann), so I know that it's a sensitive issue, but to say that you shouldn't call Tony Blair the "British" minister just seems pedantic to me, sorry.
By the way, if you go to the Number 10 Downing Street website, the welcome message says "10 Downing Street - the historic office and home of the *British* Prime Minister".

Regarding the British and Irish lions:
"The team historically used the name *British Isles*. On their 1950 tour of New Zealand and Australia they also adopted the name British Lions after the lion emblem on their jerseys. Since the 2005 tour of New Zealand they have used the name British and Irish Lions" (source: Wikipedia).
So I guess you could easily argue that "British" referred to the British Isles, and not the British (or UK) state, although in 1888 when the team first toured Australia and NZ, all of Ireland was part of the British state anyway.


----------



## Brioche

dalek said:
			
		

> Just a tad pedantic, don't you think?
> "British" is the accepted _gentilicio _for people from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland...but I guess we could call ourselves United Kingdomers, or something...if we wanted to be super anal about it.


 
Have look at a "United Kingdom" passport. 
It clearly says *British *Passport, and gives the citizenship as *British* Citizen.

Her Majesty's Government in Westminster is called the *British* government, and its representatives around the world operate from *British *Embassies, (or High Commissions)


----------



## se16teddy

panjandrum said:
			
		

> It's boring, I know, to point to the official line, but the UK Government page:
> http://www.direct.gov.uk/Gtgl1/GuideToGovernment/fs/en
> might be one of the most useful sources for official definitions.


 
Thanks for introducing this site to us, Panjandrum. It looks like the 'British' government is in just as much a muddle about this as anyone else! The section 'UK or Britain?' 'pedantically' announces 'Great Britain (or just Britain) does not include Northern Ireland.' But then the rest of the web-site seems to use 'UK' and 'Britain' / 'British' interchangeably.


----------



## Blackleaf

Northern Ireland isn't a part of Britain.  But it is a part of the UK.

On our passports, it says "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."

Our country has the second-longest official name of any country in the world.


----------



## Blackleaf

oscarlami said:
			
		

> The French from Brittany invaded the isle in the middle ages and they call it "Great Brittany", later Great Britain.
> 
> ,


 
No, they didn't.  It was the other way round.  Celts from Britain moved to Northern France, in the area where Britanny now is, and the Celts of Britanny are the descendants of those Celts, who are related to the Welsh, who moved there from Britain.


----------



## Blackleaf

Jose Carlos said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> I am at the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, in Brazil, and what I know about England is that it is a political unit of a country called United Kingdom of Great Britain and North Ireland, a country whose prime minister is Tony Blair. England, Scotland, Wales, and North Ireland are under Blair's authority. And UNO only recognizes a country called UK ( the full name is above). But a question has to be asked to FIFA, that is, why does FIFA accepts England and Scotland, for instance, as different countries in the World Cup competition?
> 
> Jose Carlos


 
Sepp Blatter wants a Britain team rather than an England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland team as he feels it's unfair that one country has 4 national teams.

However, it would be hard to persuade the people of Britain - especially the Scots - to have a Britain team.  Having said that, we might have a Britain team in the 2012 London Olympics so that we can compete ion the football tournament, as we compete as Britain in the Olympics events.


----------



## Dandee

mirandolina said:
			
		

> Don't EVER make the mistake of referring to a native of Scotland as an Englishman!


 
How many people do you think *do* know that Scotland is a different thing than England?. Scotland make very little sound to the rest of the world, because England puts the lid on you...
Do not get angry, I am not fighting. It is only an opinion.
Regards.


----------



## emma42

Hi Dandee. I suspect you seek the opinions of non-English/Scottish/British etc, but here goes, anyway:

I think that most people in Britain/UK know that Scotland is a country in its own right (not politically, even though it now has a Scottish Assembly), but culturally, historically, linguistically to a certain extent etc etc. Most Scottish and English people get on well (all other things being equal).

I was brought up in an English town which had a population of 50% Scottish from the city of Glasgow. The Scots had been invited to come and work in the Scottish owned steel works there. I grew up with Scottish people in England. It was very obvious that they were Scottish and not English, though. Their culture was very much alive - Church of Scotland, Scottish traditional dancing, sectarianism (protestant and catholic), Scottish clubs etc etc. Everyone rubbed along pretty well together, even with the sectarianism, which was often only hot air, but not always.
I had a mild Scottish accent for the first 12 or so years of my life, despite never having been to Scotland and living with English parents.


----------



## angel29

Dandee said:
			
		

> How many people do you think *do* know that Scotland is a different thing than England?. Scotland make very little sound to the rest of the world, because England puts the lid on you...
> Do not get angry, I am not fighting. It is only an opinion.
> Regards.


It's probably because (like many people) you confuse the UK (of which Scotland is an integral part) with "England".


----------



## Dandee

angel29 said:
			
		

> It's probably because (like many people) you confuse the UK (of which Scotland is an integral part) with "England".


 
No. I am not confused. That you say is very clear for me. I can see that you did not understand that I wanted to mean. England is the GREAT part, the minor part is the sum of the other three or something like that. In other words England is daddy, it rules the others obey. Don't you?

Dandee.


----------



## Brioche

Dandee said:
			
		

> No. I am not confused. That you say is very clear for me. I can see that you did not understand that I wanted to mean. England is the GREAT part, the minor part is the sum of the other three or something like that. In other words England is daddy, it rules the others obey. Don't you?
> 
> Dandee.


 
England isn't quite daddy.

Scotland has its own law, based on Roman Law, which is different from the Common Law of England and Wales.


----------



## Blackleaf

And English Common Law is much more democratic.

And if anyone "rules" anyone within the United Kingdom, it's the Scots who rule the English.


----------



## timpeac

Dandee said:
			
		

> How many people do you think *do* know that Scotland is a different thing than England?. Scotland make very little sound to the rest of the world, because England puts the lid on you...
> Do not get angry, I am not fighting. It is only an opinion.
> Regards.


I find this comment quite extraordinary. Is it just a guess on your part, or are you basing it on any facts? If so what are they? What do you mean by "put a lid on" - are you somehow suggesting that the English (by some means I can't think of) don't allow the Scottish to announce their achievements? I really think you need to explain what you mean by such sweeping comments, and provide the facts.

I have seen the tendency in Spain to use the adjective "inglés" to refer to any part of the UK (although the appropriate adjectives do of course exist).


----------



## Dandee

timpeac said:
			
		

> I find this comment quite extraordinary. Is it just a guess on your part, or are you basing it on any facts? If so what are they? What do you mean by "put a lid on" - are you somehow suggesting that the English (by some means I can't think of) don't allow the Scottish to announce their achievements? I really think you need to explain what you mean by such sweeping comments, and provide the facts.
> 
> I have seen the tendency in Spain to use the adjective "inglés" to refer to any part of the UK (although the appropriate adjectives do of course exist).


 
- *It is just a guess on my part.*
- Are you somehow suggesting that the English (by some means I can't think of) don't allow the Scottish to announce their achievements?. *Yes, the same in relation to Wales and Northern Ireland.*
*- *I suppose these last three countries are highly dependent on England and they are lost part of their own personality, so they do not mark much presence as individual countries.
- I have seen the tendency in Spain to use the adjective "inglés" to refer to any part of the UK (although the appropriate adjectives do of course exist). Not only in Spain. Probably it occurs because of the same before cited fact.
-Maybe that dependence means a comfortable position for the three and It is worth some sacrifice.
- Maybe I am wrong at all. Am I?.

Regards.
Dandee.


----------



## timpeac

Dandee said:
			
		

> - *It is just a guess on my part.*
> - Are you somehow suggesting that the English (by some means I can't think of) don't allow the Scottish to announce their achievements?. *Yes, the same in relation to Wales and Northern Ireland.*
> *- *I suppose these last three countries are highly dependent on England and they are lost part of their own personality, so they do not mark much presence as individual countries.
> - I have seen the tendency in Spain to use the adjective "inglés" to refer to any part of the UK (although the appropriate adjectives do of course exist). Not only in Spain. Probably it occurs because of the same before cited fact.
> -Maybe that dependence means a comfortable position for the three and It is worth some sacrifice.
> - Maybe I am wrong at all. Am I?.
> 
> Regards.
> Dandee.


It's hard to know where to start, really Dandee. In what way are the other countries of the UK highly dependant on England? How does this dependance make them loose their personality?

In fact, until you present some fact to support your outrageous comments I don't think I can be bothered to even go into any sort of answer.

Personally I see no evidence that the culture or achievements of Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland are in some way hidden by England.


----------



## emma42

It might be good to remember that Dandee is from Chile and may not be able to choose his words perfectly.  Also, I am sure he is not wanting to be outrageous.  I may be wrong!


----------



## timpeac

emma42 said:
			
		

> It might be good to remember that Dandee is from Chile and may not be able to choose his words perfectly. Also, I am sure he is not wanting to be outrageous. I may be wrong!


Well others seem to be throwing in pure supposition, so I don't see why you shouldn't too!

Anyway, I can't stop here too long to chat - I need to submit a definitive history of South America by the end of today, and I want to check which countries are there first.


----------



## emma42

Tim, the guy's from CHILE!


----------



## timpeac

emma42 said:
			
		

> Tim, the guy's from CHILE!


I fail to see your point. Do we have some sort of understanding that you can talk about things you have no idea about as long as you're from another continent?


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Dandee has already stated that he is open to corrections.  As Emma has pointed out, he is entering this discussion from another language and another continent and another hemisphere.  English geography and history are not, I imagine, a major topic on the Chilean curriculum.

Think of the Basques, the Catalonians, etc. in Spain.  This receives a lot of coverage in South American newspapers.  Chile still has rather tense relations with both its neighbours over access to Antofagasta or another port (Bolivia) and sovereignty over the Beagle Channel and certain islands in the vicinity (Argentina).  Chileans may also have heard something of the Troubles.  His questions and commentary, however awkwardly phrased, may perhaps make more sense in this context.

I'm looking forward to an unheated explanation of the relative independence of Scots, Welsh and North Irish.


----------



## angel29

Dandee said:
			
		

> No. I am not confused. That you say is very clear for me. I can see that you did not understand that I wanted to mean. England is the GREAT part, the minor part is the sum of the other three or something like that. In other words England is daddy, it rules the others obey. Don't you?
> 
> Dandee.


Based on your other statements, I think it's quite clear what you mean, and yes I think you are probably slightly confused and/or just being intentionally provocative.

Regarding the political aspect:

"England" doesn't even exist as a real political entity, so your statement that "it rules, the others obey" is simply untrue.

Scotland has its own legal and education system (and always has) and, since 1999, its own parliament too (which England doesn't have).
It also has MPs sitting in the House of Commons who can vote on purely English affairs (but not vice versa)...Have you heard of the West Lothian Question?
Do you know how many Scottish MPs are in the British (not English) Government Cabinet?
Did you know that Tony Blair himself is a Scot? (not to mention the Prime Minister-to-be, Gordon Brown).

Quizás deberías hacer un poco más de investigación sobre este tema si no querés que tus "opiniones" sólo sigan pareciendo más bien prejuicios.

Regards,
Angel (de familia escocesa).


			
				Chaska Ñawi said:
			
		

> English geography and history are not, I imagine, a major topic on the Chilean curriculum.


Según su perfil, Dandee es de Argentina...


----------



## Dandee

angel29 said:
			
		

> Based on your other statements, I think it's quite clear what you mean, and yes I think you are probably slightly confused and/or just being intentionally provocative.
> 
> Regarding the political aspect:
> 
> "England" doesn't even exist as a real political entity, so your statement that "it rules, the others obey" is simply untrue.
> 
> Scotland has its own legal and education system (and always has) and, since 1999, its own parliament too (which England doesn't have).
> It also has MPs sitting in the House of Commons who can vote on purely English affairs (but not vice versa)...Have you heard of the West Lothian Question?
> Do you know how many Scottish MPs are in the British (not English) Government Cabinet?
> Did you know that Tony Blair himself is a Scot? (not to mention the Prime Minister-to-be, Gordon Brown).
> 
> Quizás deberías hacer un poco más de investigación sobre este tema si no querés que tus "opiniones" sólo sigan pareciendo más bien prejuicios.
> 
> Regards,
> Angel (de familia escocesa).
> 
> Según su perfil, Dandee es de Argentina...


 
You are right, I am argentinan. So It is better to leave Chile apart, also it is not important where I am from. The same doubts I have are the same than many other people do. I am investigating that is the why i am participating in this thread. Nothing more valuable than first source information (I think you are a trully source).

Regards.


----------



## maxiogee

Dandee said:
			
		

> How many people do you think *do* know that Scotland is a different thing than England?. Scotland make very little sound to the rest of the world, because England puts the lid on you...
> Do not get angry, I am not fighting. It is only an opinion.
> Regards.



I'm much too close to both England and Scotland to be able to speak about how much "sound" Scotland makes to the rest of the world, but, were we discussing country XYZ in South America, I would be very careful about alleging that the "sound" I hear from it is the same sound that the _rest of the world_ hears. That's a lot of people for one person to be speaking on behalf od of!


----------



## Brioche

Blackleaf said:
			
		

> Northern Ireland isn't a part of Britain. But it is a part of the UK.
> 
> On our passports, it says "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."
> 
> Our country has the second-longest official name of any country in the world.


 
The old blue passports had *British Passport* written on them.
I haven't got round to getting one of the new red ones.


----------



## emma42

The red one says what Maxi says it says, but with "European Union" at the top, above the United Kingdom stuff. My mother would go mad if she saw it.

Actually, my mother_ is_ mad.


----------



## maxiogee

emma42 said:
			
		

> The red one says what Maxi says it says,



Oh no you don't!
I'm not getting dragged into this "what makes up Britain" debate!
I solely commented on the perception the rest of the world might, or might not, have of Scotland.

You can't drag this Paddy into this discussion, not with a team of wild horses — be they Shetland Ponies, Exmoor Ponies, Welsh Mountain Ponies or our own Connemara Ponies! 

Youse did the naming of it,   
youse may do the defining of it,   
youse may do the explaining of it!  

I live in Ireland - that's all *I* need to know!  
If others on the island wish to define themselves in other ways, that's fine by me - truly. 
I no longer know what it really means to be Irish. I only know that the defining characteristics bet into me in 1950s primary schools no longer hold true for me, if they ever did.


----------



## emma42

I am so sorry - it was Blackleaf I was referring to.  Calm down, Tony, calm down!


----------



## panjandrum

As a resident of the top right-hand corner of The Island that somehow manages also to have the space for maxiogee, I .....
smufhrrkjkkkkkk,,,.^^^
<<Remainder of this post has been suppressed by the English>>






Uh-Uh - I don't tink so.
I can quite confidently assert that however things may have been before I arrived, the English have not been putting lids on the self-expression of the rest of the islands since.  There may be some slight difference in the extent to which the voices of the various countries are heard - but then there are 40 of the English for each one of us (speaking for my own wee corner, that is) so that may not be surprising - and anyway, we have ways of compensating for numerical disparity.

Although nominally a British Citizen, I can also claim to be Irish - whichever happens to suit.  I chose to label myself as from Ireland here because that explains a great deal.


----------



## maxiogee

panjandrum said:
			
		

> There may be some slight difference in the extent to which the voices of the various countries are heard - but then there are 40 of the English for each one of us (speaking for my own wee corner, that is) so that may not be surprising - and anyway, we have ways of compensating for numerical disparity.



To speak of the Irish for a moment, as they are the ones I know of…
Compare Ireland's share of Nobel Laureates with that of the English.
Compare our share of English Literature's great names and see if we have been silenced.

Then go to the Scottish pages of famous names and compare the number of greats they produced in Engineering, Medicine, Literature again (who can forget the Great McGonagle - literally, who can forget him?) and other artistic endeavours. Weigh these by population against the English and you'll see no silencing.


----------



## deGerlaise

QE is indeed Queen of Canada. Also Queen of Australia, Queen of New Zealand, etc.  As a parliamentary democracy our head of state is QE II who just happens to be Queen of Great Britain & N. Ireland. I've been looking at the old dear on our stamps and coin and notes all my life. There are Canadians who don't even know why she's there. There are other Canadians who wonder why she continues to be there and there are quite a number of Canadians who don't care whether she's there or not. In any case her image  shows up all over the place, post offices, schools, army messes and so on. When she or any of her family show up, there is still a fair amount of fuss made on the occasion. I don't mind it personally. Certain regions of the country (notably Québec) resent it, but most accept it as a normal part of our political system and as something that makes us a bit different than the Yanks.


----------



## Brioche

deGerlaise said:
			
		

> QE is indeed Queen of Canada. Also Queen of Australia, Queen of New Zealand, etc. As a parliamentary democracy our head of state is QE II who just happens to be Queen of Great Britain & N. Ireland.


 
There is no "just happens to be" about it. Whoever is monarch of the UK is automatically monarch of Australia.

According the Australian Constitution, the reference to the Queen extends "_to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom_".

The Queen has the _title_ "Queen of Australia" thanks to the Australian _Royal Styles and Titles Act_ of 1953. 

It's a _title_, not a separate monarchy.


----------



## Pivra

panjandrum said:
			
		

> Taking time to recover from the shock: this site should bring you up to date


 
 Not Mrs. Federline?? lol (Who've already watched Click lol, her 21th baby)

 Are Scottish, Welsh, and Irish the official languages of the UK too? What language do they speak in Glasgow or Edinbourgh. How about in Cardiff?


----------



## panjandrum

English, with appropriate distinctive accents, is the normal language in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Belfast, Dublin, and throughout most of the rest of Great Britain and Ireland.

Welsh is formally recognised as an official language in Wales.  All official government publications are produced in English and in Welsh. 

The situation in Northern Ireland is somewhat similar with regard to Irish. 

I don't know about Scotland.


----------



## Dueño de Brucéfalo

Hello, all...as an American, these are all terms that I hear used more or less interchangeably to mean "that cluster of islands across the Atlantic that we used to belong to, where they speak a language almost the same as ours." But I feel certain that these four terms don't mean _exactly _the same thing, and I was hoping that BE speakers--or anyone who knows this well--when and how these are used; for example which are considered more "correct" or "official", and what the actual speakers of BE call _themselves._

The odd one out, I realize, would be "UK" since it's used to refer to Ireland, Scotland and Wales as well, right?

Thanks very much for your input,
A Yank


----------



## Siberia

I'm British, definitely not English as I'm from Wales.
Great Britain is the big "island" and includes: England, Scotland and Wales.
The UK is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland so big island + part of the smaller island.
England is a region of the UK, and so are Wales, Scotland and Nothern Ireland.
They are all correct in their meanings.
I would say I'm from the UK or from Britain. I don't normally bother with "Great". I always say I'm Welsh!!!!


----------



## Dueño de Brucéfalo

OK, so far this seems to be making sense, in a rather complicated sort of way.  We Americans can be sloppy when it comes to making these distinctions.

Hopefully I can get input from other natives of the region as well: do you think a Londoner would be more likely to say "I am British" or "I am English"?


----------



## Siberia

In the UK ones tends to say the region, outside it's almost always British.


----------



## tomatico

Just out of curiosity (and ignorance), why would a person from England dislike being called British?


----------



## Not Logged In

Because we have real issues here at the moment. Since the Labour Government devolved power to the Scottish and Welsh parliaments in order to prop up their power base we have a situation where the majority (England) pays a disproportionate amount to support the other nations in tax but has a deeply disadvatageous constitutional settlement.

We have no parliament of our own in England now so Scottish MPs vote on matters such as Education and health in England which they may not vote on in Scotland beause such issue are devolved to the Scottish Assembly. So we have English students paying university tuition fees in England voted in by Scottish MPs when SMPs (Scottish parliament ones) voted for no fees in Scotland for Scottish University students.

The same goes for funding of healthcare and medicines etc etc etc

http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=2409432005

When you call us British you lump us all in together.


----------



## Not Logged In

We call them the "Celtic Whinge". 

(Pun on Celtic Fringe....)

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages...ews.html?in_article_id=428266&in_page_id=1770

[http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/01/wallace_572x700.jpg 



> "A majority of voters in both Scotland and England want the countries to split.
> 
> Failing that, both think England should have a Parliament of its own deciding on English affairs without any involvement of Scottish MPs.
> 
> The poll findings demonstrate deep and potentially fatal cracks in the 300-year union of the two countries, and threaten to present Gordon Brown with a constitutional crisis if he becomes Prime Minister.
> 
> In a further blow to Mr Brown, a majority in both countries want him to call an election within a year of coming to power, to secure his own mandate from the voters. "


----------



## Lombard Beige

To make the legal terminology clearer for Americans:

*UK* (United Kingdom) * is like USA; it's the international name.
*England *(in the east) is like New York or any other state
*Wales *(in the west) is like Oregon or any other state
*Scotland *(in the north) is like Louisiana (it has a different system of law, a different religion, the _Kirk _(Church of Scotland, etc., they play the bagpipes, wear kilts, etc.)
*  Northern Ireland* is like Alaska (i.e. it is part of the UK, but separated geographically)  
*  ROI* (Republic of Ireland) is like Canada (i.e. an independent sovereign state).

There are also direct Crown dependencies: Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, etc., with for example certain fiscal advantages.

* The full name is United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Head of State is Her Britannic Majesty Queen Ellizabeth II.  


 regards


----------



## panjandrum

A very good try, and a great summary, but I need to make a few corrections and additions for clarity.

*UK* (United Kingdom) * is like USA; it's the international name.
There is a UK parliament with members from England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

 *England *(in the east) is like New York or any other state
There is no specifically-English elected body.

 *Wales *(in the west) is like Oregon or any other state
They have the Welsh Assembly of Government.

 *Scotland *(in the north) is like Louisiana (it has a different system of law, a different religion, the _Kirk _(Church of Scotland, etc., they play the bagpipes, wear kilts, etc.)
Scotland has the Scottish Parliament.

 *  Northern Ireland* is like Alaska (i.e. it is part of the UK, but separated geographically)  
NI has the Northern Ireland Assembly.

 *  ROI* (Republic of Ireland) is like Canada (i.e. an independent sovereign state).


----------



## Cheesee = Madness

foxfirebrand said:


> You'd enjoy studying Russia-- a mare's nest of "nationality okrugs," autonomous ethnic regions, and fullblown Republics, in addition to many another category of political unit, some with real "sovereignty" (on paper anyway, a little like American Indian Reservations).  The Tatar region is "governed" by permantly-empaneled bilateral treaty negotiators, who decide everything on an ad hoc basis without ever defining what kind of sub-region of the Russian Federation Tataria even is.  There'd be hell to pay if the Tatars went the way of Chechnya.  This is Russia itself I'm talking about, not the dissolved Union of Soviet Republics, or the Confederation of former Soviet states, whatever it's called.  Interesting times ahead for Russia.
> 
> I hope this all reflects, by analogy, on the topic in question.  The semantics of national subdivisions is still the beast under study.  Apartheid-era SA had "countries" within a nation also, and another inadequately-defined such relationship exists, right inside the Commonwealth-- Québec, _vis-à-vis_ Canada.


I'd like to point out that now Québec is "A nation within a united Canada" Whatever that means


----------



## Antipodean

I've just stumbled upon the comment that Canada, Australia, New Zealand and many other countries are supposed to be sub-units (?) of the Queen of England. I supppose it's a natural enough observation to make if one is not a citizen of these countries. I'd like to take this opportunity to back up Renel (who I look forward to seeing in the English-French forum!) regarding the status of Canada, Australia and New Zealand vis à vis the "mother country". He is perfectly correct in what he says. In the case of Australia and New Zealand, Queen Elizabeth is the Queen of Australia or Queen of New Zealand when she visits Australia and New Zealand respectively. Her legal status as monarch of Australia is quite separate from her legal status as monarch of Canada or monarch of New Zealand or wherever. Of course, notwithstanding the very close cultural relationships and much shared history between the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, we each have independent foreign policies, cultures and, dare I say, understandings of how to speak English!


----------



## kyotan

Which word do non-British people use, when a person is from the U.K.? 

"He is from *the U.K. / Britain / England*."

Which do British people use to say which country you are from?

I am from *the U.K. / Britain / England.*"

"England" isn't Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland but I added in the options because it's a popular word. If you have heard other says British people say, or if you are a British person and say it differently, please let me know.

Thank you.


----------



## Kirill V.

I can answer only for myself and as a non-British

I'd say: _ ...he is from the UK_ or ..._he is from Britain 
_
I wouldn't say _from England_ , only if I do know he is from England I can tell that later on in the conversation, if appropriate, and more likely specifying the place: _he is from London
_
I think this is partly because not that many people in Russia know exactly which cities/areas of the UK fall into which of its constituate parts (England, Scotland...), so to say that someone is from England may leave uncertainty


----------



## JulianStuart

There is a 9-page thread on the subject here (http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=47935)


----------



## JustKate

Kyotan, I've merged your question with the existing thread that Julian references above. (Thanks, Julian. ) I've also renamed the thread to make it easier to find, or at least easier for *me* to find. I hope it answers your questions, but if not, you're welcome to ask them in the thread.

JustKate
English Only moderator


----------



## ewie

"I'm from the United Kingdom¹ ~ I'm British²/English³."

¹ The country I'm _from_.
² My legal nationality.
³ What I _am_.

I would never in a million years say _I'm from *Britain*_ or even _I'm from *Great Britain*_


----------



## Kevin Beach

It would depend on the context in which I was speaking.

Internationally, I would call myself British. The legal description of a citizen of the United Kingdom is "British", despite the fact that part of the UK (i.e. Northern Ireland) is not part of the island of Britain. Members of the Loyalist community in Northern Ireland, as a political statement, call themselves "British". But members of the Nationalist community call themselves "Irish", for the same reason.

In the context of talking about the culture in which I live, I would probably call myself English. But I could also call myself "Southern English", "Irish-British" (not "Anglo-Irish", because that denotes a specific, historical community to which my family never belonged) or even a "Londoner".

If I were talking philosophically, I might call myself an Internationalist!


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

ewie said:


> "I'm from the United Kingdom¹ ~ I'm British²/English³."
> 
> ¹ The country I'm _from_.
> ² My legal nationality.
> ³ What I _am_.
> 
> I would never in a million years say _I'm from *Britain*_ or even _I'm from *Great Britain*_



This seems to open up a thorny discussion, which may well not be relevant here but I'll raise it anyway. While the United Kingdom is clearly a sovereign state, is it your ''country''? A Scottish or Irish nationalist would say ''my country is Scotland/Ireland albeit we are currently ruled by (the state known as) the United Kingdom''.

The British authorities claim that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are ''constituent countries'' (whatever that means) of the United Kingdom. So, in your case, are there two countries (England and the UK)? One country and one sovereign state (England and the UK)? Only one country (the UK, of which England is presumably a region)? Or something else?


----------



## Kirill V.

kayve said:


> I can answer only for myself and as a non-British
> 
> I'd say: _ ...he is from the UK_ or ..._he is from Britain
> _
> I wouldn't say _from England_



I just gave it another thought and realized that my response (copied above) was actually wrong! I would identify someone as being_ from the UK _or_ from Britain _*only* if I were saying it in English (that is what is normally the case, though, here in Russia at least, since when both Russians and British are present they normally speak English, as it is much more likely that Russians speak English than visa versa).

However, if I were to say this in Russian, I would definitely say: _This is James. He is *English*._ (or _He is from England_). And everybody will understand that he is actually from the UK. I think this is due to a probably centuries-long tradition.


----------



## JulianStuart

kayve said:


> However, if I were to say this in Russian, I would definitely say: _This is James. He is *English*._ (or _He is from England_). And everybody will understand that he is actually from the UK. I think this is due to a probably centuries-long tradition.


Are you saying that you would use English, even of James was from Scotland?  Or only that you would use  "David is Welsh", "George is English", "Andrew is Scottish", (i.e., as appropriate) instead of "David is British"?


----------



## Phil-Olly

kyotan said:


> Which do British people use to say which country you are from?
> 
> I am from *the U.K. / Britain / England.*"



I live half the year in Spain, and always answer "I'm from Scotland - Soy escoces."  But most ex-pats here are English, and few acknowledge the difference: 
"When are you going back to England?"  "Never, possibly"
"Petrol's so much dearer in England, isn't it?"  "Is it?  I never buy petrol in England."  etc.

Sometimes I even find myself saying something like, "We never eat food like this back in England," as a way of "talking-down" to the terminally ignorant.

I am so looking forward to the time when Scotland is Scotland.  When it becomes a country again, and not part of the UK.  And you can expect this to happen very soon!


----------



## Kirill V.

JulianStuart said:


> Are you saying that you would use English, even of James was from Scotland?  Or only that you would use  "David is Welsh", "George is English", "Andrew is Scottish", (i.e., as appropriate) instead of "David is British"?



I mean, everybody (or almost everybody) still says _He is English _or _He is from England _about any person from the UK. Apart from the long-standing tradition, another reason I think is that all the UK citizen speak English language, especially when they are abroad.

Saying that someone is Scottish, for example, would sound rather interesting and unusual. I think for the Russian listeners that would imply that he/she really does care to be called Scottish and not English. That is absolutely OK, but that's just still not a usual thing to hear


----------



## JulianStuart

kayve said:


> I mean, everybody (or almost everybody) still says _He is English _or _He is from England _about any person from the UK. Apart from the long-standing tradition, another reason I think is that all the UK citizen speak English language, especially when they are abroad.
> 
> Saying that someone is Scottish, for example, would sound rather interesting and unusual. I think for the Russian listeners that would imply that he/she really does care to be called Scottish and not English. That is absolutely OK, but that's just still not a usual thing to hear


Thanks.  My initial reaction was that it was simply "misinformed" but now see it as a "simplification".   I can see a clear parallel to how most people in the west called everyone from the USSR "Russians" even though there were 14 other SSR's that were not the same country as (the) Russia(n SSR).  Now that the USSR has broken up, we refer to each country individually - and we will have to change our ways if Scotland indeed becomes a separate state.


----------



## Kirill V.

Yes, I think if Scotland does become a separate state then certainly Scottish citizens will not be referred to as "English", that's for sure


----------



## timpeac

kayve said:


> I mean, everybody (or almost everybody) still says _He is English _or _He is from England _about any person from the UK. Apart from the long-standing tradition, another reason I think is that all the UK citizen speak English language, especially when they are abroad.
> 
> Saying that someone is Scottish, for example, would sound rather interesting and unusual. I think for the Russian listeners that would imply that he/she really does care to be called Scottish and not English. That is absolutely OK, but that's just still not a usual thing to hear


When I was at school learning Spanish this is exactly what my Spanish teacher told the class about Spanish - that it was very common to use "inglés" no matter where in the UK the person in question might be from within the UK and that they might therefore use "English" when speaking English where we would say "British" (or Scottish/Welsh etc. as appropriate). I wonder if this is what Phil-Olly has come across.


----------

