Talk:United Kingdom

England/Wales/Scotland/ N. Ireland

These are not countries; they are provinces. I don't want to jump in and edit a locked page, so this needs discussion :P

Thanks Cmjrees (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest you look through the archives at this issue? Simillarly, this is a very well established consensus you're challenging, one that has far reaching implications well beyond this article. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

We've discussed this so much it should really be an FAQ. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That's quite a good idea. I know Talk:United States has a good one. I'd endorss that idea. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A summary of past major discussions would help new comers to the article to have some background of how we arrived at what we have today and hopefully steer them away from bringing up the same things again. Keith D (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I did something similar, though not as thorough and complete, in the Scotland page called Talk:Scotland#Just the facts Ma'am -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 03:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The article has been changed recently to say first it is a country and then that it is just a political union. It is not a political union, the European Union is a political union, the UK is a country with 4 constituent countries. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 15:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems to have been changed back again. Good. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I made a small start on what an FAQ might look like at User talk:DJ Clayworth/UKFAQ. Feel free to comment here or on my talk page. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. We need to up the citation a bit there (I think User:UKPhoenix79 might be able to help with that), and also, I'd advocate that we mention the UK is also a country, and described as such. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow thanks Jza84 for the praise, but most of the references pertaining to this subject are already on the Scottish Talk page so take all the references you need. If anythings missing just let me know and I'll do my best to help :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"The article has been changed recently to say first it is a country and then that it is just a political union. It is not a political union, the European Union is a political union, the UK is a country with 4 constituent countries." - the UK is a country that is a political union of other countries - surely that's not disputed is it? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Not me, but it does seem a step backwards, editorially speaking, to include it the way it is, with citation and brackets, and in the middle of a long-standing lead section. I'd suggest a revert/rethink. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Is that better? - I've now avoided the use of brackets. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks much better, to my tastes and sensibilities anyway! Thanks Fishiehelper2! --Jza84 |  Talk  22:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I would never call it a politial union. The overall power in the UK is parliament, one single political institution which oversees all of the constituent countries. Some low-level basic stuff has been devolved, mostly trivial stuff but in no way shape or form are the devolved assemblies equal to parliament which is what a union suggests. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 01:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The devolved assemblies/parliaments have major executive powers, on education, health and justice, and a range of other issues - more than, usually, many English (inhabitants!) realise. The UK is a country, but it is built on political union (see History of the formation of the United Kingdom and Template:UKFormation). --Jza84 |  Talk  01:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

They have small minor domestic powers with no influence on world politics. They just like them to think they are more important because they will kick up a stink if they think they are not. The real power lies within parliament, deciding where to build a new school is not real power. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 01:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Joshii. The UK is a political union because that was how it was formed and not because there happen to be devolved institutions today in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Treaty of Union is the key to all this: sovereign countries agreed to form a single, sovereign country. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 07:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

My two cents on the matter would be that the UK was formed by a political union, but to say 'the UK is a political union' would be dubious and POV.--Breadandcheese (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I don't quite follow the logic of your point. If the UK was formed by a political union, which you concede, then why would it no longer be a political union now? Indeed, the reason why politicians choose to call themselves 'unionist' is because they wish to defend the union. Anyway, the article political union gives the United Kingdom as an example of a political union which suggests that others take a similar view on this matter. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone care to cite sources stating this one way or another? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There are two references at the political union article. I've also found this quote (from what appears to be University notes from Sweden!) - "The United Kingdom is a political union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (originally included the whole of Ireland). Sovereign title is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." - still looking! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

When they formed the union (of constituent countries) they surrendered their political power over to parliament and it is only recently that some small powers have been given back to the other countries but overall parliament is the ruling government of the UK. Thats why we have the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the head of state is the Queen of the UK and her Commonwealth realms. The UK represents iself in the EU as a country with one leader, not a union with a leader for each constituent country. The term politial union is thrown about quite alot as it simplifies the complex system of government in this country but overall parliament rules, not England rules, parliament represents the whole of the UK. Maybe it was thought that bringing the counties together would be a political union but it is not like that today and when Scotland and England joined it was the joining of crowns, not political union. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 22:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The Union of the Crowns forced a personal union; a (as opposed to the) enlarged political union came a century later. The Parliament of the United Kingdom is the top-tier deliberative assembly for the UK, and has supreme power, but it has devolved powers to the national/sub-national (<- take your pick) bodies. OK, these devolved parliments/assemblies are basically there for domestic issues. I'm not sure what it is that is up for debate here though; is it that "political union" be removed from the lead? If so (and I don't really feel strongly about it eitherway), why so? Certainly the source (i.e. an article from The Telegraph) would benefit from a substitution as a minimum here. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this started when I changed the phrase order to clarify a clumsy wording and further well-meant changes cascaded from it. I will try again. Howard Alexander (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you intentions are good, but you seem to have removed the important claim that 'the United Kingdom is a political union' without any explanation. I added the phrase because I feel it is important for any reader to understand that the UK was formed as a result of sovereign countries agreeing to join as one, but of course, it could break up again in the future. It appears that everyone accepts that the UK was formed by political union but some are not sure about describing the UK as a political union. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

My revert has since been reverted by another editor, without any sort of explanation. In an attempt to find consensus I've made a minor change instead to describe the UK as 'a Union' rather than as 'a political union' - there a loads of sources to show that this description is both valid and frequently used. Hope this satisfies everybody! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not reverted or amended at all. Is it a question of approach though? The heading describes the United Kingdom in brief terms, including its position and rough extent. The history of how it was created is a separate matter and not really a matter for the heading. The mention of the constituent countries (an unofficial term of mere convenience) is useful for context and because it would be expected, but it is not the right point in the article to try to do a summary analysis of history or politics.

If we say "these traditional areas are recognized to exist geographically and as the extent of separate legal systems" that is fine and accurate. If one tries to hint that they have some legal status as extant if dormant states waiting to leap out again, that is incorrect; read the Acts of Union of 1707 and 1800.

Howard Alexander (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Howard Alexander. I think you are putting your interpretation on things here: I think you'll find that the Republic of Ireland is an independent country despite the wording of the Acts of Union - the reality is that the United Kingdom is a democracy and it is accepted that Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland (or England for that matter) could leave the Union if that was the wish of the people in those countries. That puts the constituent countries of the UK in a different position from States in the USA which do not have a right to secede. That the UK is a Union is more that a historical point - it is as much a key point about the nature of the UK as to say that the UK is a democracy or to say that the UK is a monarchy. I really don't see why this point appears to be causing particular concern. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Er, just to butt in: democratic theory is inherently opposed to nationalism and secession. Moreover, if the constituent countries of the UK wanted to depart, they could only do so with the consent of the UK Parliament: they certainly have no 'right' to secede. --Breadandcheese (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Breadandcheese. I don't know where you get the view that 'democratic theory is inherently opposed to nationalism and secession' - maybe that's for another discussion! However, while you are correct that the UK Parliament would have to approve Scottish independence, it has been accepted by the leading politicans of the main parties that Scotland could have independence if that was the will of the people. This position stands in contrast to say the situation of the Basques in Spain who have been told that Spain is indivisible and the Basque Country will never get independence whether they want it or not!

Perhaps we are getting away from the point - the UK is one of a very small number of countries that was formed by sovereign states agreeing to merge into a new country. This Union is more than just a historical point - it is a major issue in elections in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales - therefore the fact that the UK is a Union must be a significant point to make! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely technically a union of 3 Kingdoms not countries: 1) England with Wales, 2) Scotland and 3) part of Ireland Also, whatever the consensus it is quite clear that constitutionally Wales is not a country (even though I am Welsh and believe it should be), it is a principality .Domminico (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't go here. It was debated for a month on the Wales page and multiple evidence was assembled to the effect that Wales is a country. The original union was three kingdoms (not part of Ireland, there was no partition at that time). from that point it is a Kingdom (united). UK Government web sites establish that Wales is a country. At the opening of the Welsh Assembly the constitution monarch addressed Wales as a country. Look back at the archives to see the evidence, and note the sheer energy we all had to waste on sock puppets. --Snowded (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am going to regret wading into this one, but I couldn't let that go. Being a principality does not preclude being a country. Monaco and Andorra are principalities and are countries; more importantly, Wales was a principality and country before it was conquered by England and was administered by the Prince of Wales (when there was one) after the conquest. Clearly it retained some sort of distinctiveness within in the Kingdom of England after it was conquered It is not unreasonable to maintain that it retains that "country" status even though the Prince's role its administration is long since ended. -Rrius (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Map of Land

If you look at France's page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France) (no need to start old issues :) ), you will see that the territories/parts of France are included in their main page under "Administrative Divisions." To find the land owned/claimed by the UK, you will have to search for the page British Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_empire) and look at the end of the page entitled, "Legacy." I am not sure why the land claimed by the UK is not on their page and make a recommendation to copy that data to the UK page.--Manos Lijeros (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean places like the Faulkin Islands? GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking about British overseas territories, then these are under British sovereignty but aren't technically part of the UK, whereas the French overseas departments are as much a part as France as the metropolitan territory. I would suggest this is why there is a difference in how these territories are dealt with in the France article. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I do understand the distinction between an oversees and/or non-contiguous area that is part of a country vs. what is not governed in the same manner--say French Guiana (for France) and Alaska (for the U.S.A.) being distinct from Wake Island (one of the U.S. Minor Outlying Islands). I was simply putting forward a suggestion for the information to be included in another section of the U.K. page so the information is on one page rather than on two.  :) Would have saved me finding and loading another page. No big deal... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manos Lijeros (talk • contribs) 14:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Dablinks

Can I point out that the article is about the United Kingdom. I'm sure I've raised this before (specifically to Fishiehelper), but we shouldn't be dabing to sub-UK articles in dablinks. I.e. look at the United States (we don't list all fifty states) and European Union. England doesn't dab to counties too. There appears to be a systematic attempt here to skip the UK articles (which exist, and exist for a reason) for constituent country pages. In this capacity I intend to revert. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I note you intend to revert on some point of principle. My 'principle' is to do what is most appropriate for the article and for people who are trying to find out more about any particular section. For example, the link you provided for local government in the UK is to a disambiguation page. I would suggest that it is more sensible to give the relevant links directly. The link to 'education in the UK' is an article just about comparing differences between the systems. I have no objection to links to UK articles if they are the most appropriate, but if they are not it makes more sense to link to the current links.

Thanks for taking this to the talk page. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"Appropriateness" is, of course, subjective, and not strcitly a criteria for inclusion or disclusion. I think I've made my point clear here, but I think I need to repeat them: the article is about the UK, if I want to read about an aspect of the UK in a specific link, I want to be able to navigate to that page from here, like every other country (even city!). If an article exists, I don't want it hidden away, I want to be able to read it; if I want to see comparisons between ENG/SCO/WLS/NI then so be it, but I want that material open as an option. If a top-level page exists for the UK, it should be shown.

Indeed, where do we stop? Should we add pages like Culture of Cornwall, Culture of Manchester? What about Sport in Glasgow? Rhetorical question, of course. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You make my point for me! "If a top-level page exists..." - the pages you wish to link to are hardly 'top level'. However, the solution to this appears simple - add links rather than replace. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That's just one aspect of my objection, there are others above. Can you clarify what you mean by your assertion that these links are "hardly top-level"? I believe these are top-level as they either explain an aspect of the UK as a whole, sovereign state, or elaborate on on certain practices or systems that are found within the various subdivisions of the United Kingdom. You're missing my point that whilst obvious to some, splitting dabbing straight to ENG/SCO/WLS/NI is less appropriate as it doesn't explain why this is so. Indeed, if we're going to erase-out these "top-level" dablinks, why do they exist in the first place? --Jza84 |  Talk  15:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I have misinterpreted 'top-level'. I am suggesting that some of the articles are very poor at giving further detail to what is presently in the UK article, whereas the links to the English, Scottish etc articles develop points further from the brief summary in the UK article. If the links you prefer led to better articles than the present links do, I would agree with your wish to use them instead. Until then, my opinion remains that the existing links are more useful. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jza84, your edits to this article have often seemed very anti-UK and it almost seems like you have been trying to split up the UK into countries disregarding the fact that the UK itself is a country. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 23:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jza84 although not for the reasons stated above. It seems to me that the British Literature entry is richer and references more than the three main countries. To be consistent the change should also apply to Culture. --Snowded (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point too, one I hadn't considered. I know Fishiehelper2 makes a perfectly valid point that some of these UK daughter articles are weak (in some cases), but that's an issue we need to address (I've tried to do so today a little myself). On the flipside, I have no objection to organising some sections into ENG/SCO/WLS/NI paragraphs (something Fishiehelper2 has done effectively), but I do agree the UK dab should be used here. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Done with this diff --Jza84 |  Talk  00:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I still disagree. I am accused of being anti-UK but it appears that others are so strongly 'anti anything that could be interpreted as anti-UK' that we now have a 'main article' that is a disambiguation page! So be it, though I think this is a backward step. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but some of those pages were articles until (in many cases) converted to false-disambiguation pages, I note, without discussion. They should be articles, not disamiguation pages. E.g. Local government in the United Kingdom is not an ambiguous title (there's no other topic that could occupy that title), and shouldn't be presented as such per WP:D. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The Local government in the United Kingdom article was previously an article about local government in England - I tried to rectify the problem by renaming the page and someone else created a disambiguation page to improve the situation. I would like to see proper articles as well, but at least the current disambiguation page is an improvement on what existed before. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

sports

I think it needs to be mentioned in the sports section that the United State's NFL football league played a game in london in 2007 and will play one in 2008 and possibly every year going forward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.11.8 (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

What? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.81.148 (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Scottish referendum

With all due respect to those Scottish nationalists amongst us, is it really necessary to put the poll of 41% supporting independence to 40% supporting union retention? Bearing in mind that there have been a very large amount of polls conducted on this matter, with responses ranging from 21% support of independence up to the mid-40s, it seems to me that including this, without making reference to the fact that the many polls conducted have had such various responses, offers unfair bias towards the cause for Scottish independence. Malarious (talk) 21:33, 05 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I put the original poll in (that showed 40% for independence and 44% against) and I then updated the poll when the same polling organisation produced their latest result. I didn't think that including the poll details 'supports the cause of scottish independence', but if you do the solution is to reword the sentence. Infact, I'll have a go!! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, very well done there. I like it...I want to use that exact sentence in every-day conversation as much as possible. Cheers for that. Malarious (talk) 22:08, 05 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether we should be including opinion poll results given the wide range of results they show, often as a result of differences in the wording of the question (see here). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I used the Sunday Herald poll (out of the range that are available) because they use the exact question that the SNP administration intends to pose in their proposed referendum, and as you draw attention to, the results of any opinion surveys are strongly influenced by the wording of the questions. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, can we mention that in the article? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've tried - is that what you mean? Fishiehelper2 (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the original poster, the entire large paragraph dealing solely with the current state of the Scottish independance debate (i.e. 2008), and its relative size compared to the rest of the section, titled History (which is meant to cover 3 centuries), is a complete disaster in terms of overal article quality, bordering on a violation of giving undue wieght to a single issue. MickMacNee (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it seems disproportionate. Some of it overlaps with what's under the Devolved national administrations heading too. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree. The fact that there is a possibility that the 300 year old Union could be in serious risk of coming to an end is surely a highly significant issue! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, on re-reading, the paragraph could be trimmed...I'll try!! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely the section about opinion polls should be cut out altogether. It verging on crystal balling. Scottish independence is only significant if steps towards it are taken. No matter what happens in the next few years the opinion polls will be quickly forgotten. They are in no way historically significant, which should be the minimum standard for inclusion in the history section. The section on possible break away of Scotland is longer than the actual break away of Ireland, which makes no reference to the causes of the break away other than mentioning "long simmering tensions". josh (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Rather than cut, I've moved to the subsection on 'devolved national administrations' as I think it fits well there in the context of Wendy supporting a referendum in the hope it will yield a 'No' vote. Is that better? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

legislative path to independence

A recent edit suggests that the creation of the scottish parliament and the recent election of an SNP administration has led to the prospect of a legislative path to independence. I think this language is misleading, but rather than simply edit this, I think it is better if I explain my thinking.

There has always been, and remains, just one legislative path to independence - that is if the UK parliament passes legislation to enact Scottish Independence. The creation of the scottish parliament does not create another legislative path - what it does is create another vehicle by which support for independence could be demonstrated, and by so doing, to seek to persuade the UK parliament to pass the required legislation. The Scottish parliament can not hold a referendum on independence as such since the constitution is a reserved matter, but it could hold a referendum to seek the agreement of the people of scotland to the scottish government negotiating an independence settlement. (If such a negotiation were to happen, a further referendum would likely be required to see whether the settlement was approved.) Ultimately, if the will of the people of Scotland is for Scotland to become independent, the UK parliament will have to pass the legislation for this to happen - that is the legislative path to independence.

Prior to the scottish parliament being created, the only vehicle to demonstrate support for independence was pro-independence candidates winning in a majority of scottish constituencies at a UK general election. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you are right. The recent election and prospect of a referendum opens up the possibility of political pressure for independence, but there is no legislation which would allow for independence without a new act being introduced into Parliament. --Snowded (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this its possible they might run into some difficulties in their quest for independence! Joe Deagan (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well speaking personally I hope they succeed and Wales follows thereafter. However POV aside, the facts are that there is no legislation to enable independence. --Snowded (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)