england.* Newsgroups Help and FAQ
MUHATAMA COAT
>In article <k%x55.22$tg2...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
>Firk˙ <firkymc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I think it woild help if you were more familar to UK current
>>affairs.
>Not relevant.
Eh WTF?
So the fact that English people want to talk about their countries
current affairs, unique history, culture and other assorted titbits is
not relevant to creating a Hierarchy these days?
Your off your fucking head man...Really you should listen to yourself.
f'in troll.
>The UK hierarchy is successful the 'states' groups are
>barely ticking over, the highest trafficed complete hierarchy only has
>the traffic of one rather anemic newsgroup in a real hierarchy.
Why should the new england.* hierarchy buck the trend of any new set
of groups, word has to get around, its as simple as that.
If anyone reading this didn't realise there has been a new Usenet
england. hierarchy created in the past month, as the posting numbers
show there is plenty of room for new posters who wish to take part in
the England Usenet community.
If you wish to post to them send this list to your ISP requesting them
(the numbers along side each group show the amount of posts in has
received in a week, the bracketed numbers show the difference from the
week before.-
england.sport.football 260 [+184]
england.politics.misc 68 [+50]
england.chat 61 [-45]
england.politics.environment 59 [+24]
england.religion.christian 41 [+28]
england.test 35[-76]
england.music.misc 29 [-53]
england.writing 27 [-3]
england.politics.europe 25 [+24]
england.news.policy 23 [-27]
england.politics.conservative 18 [-4]
england.history.misc 15 [+7]
england.sport.football.clubs.man-utd 14 [-1]
england.religion.islam 12 [+12]
england.org.trade-union 11 [+10]
england.ads.personals 9 [-14]
england.legal 9 [-1]
england.ads.computer 8 [-7]
england.culture.theatre 7 [-3]
england.music.underground 7 [+2]
england.biz.entrepreneur 6 [-8]
england.rec.gardening 5 [+0]
england.sport.cricket 5 [+1]
england.ads.misc 4 [-5]
england.consultants 4 [-4]
england.jobs.offered 4 [-2]
england.local.london 4 [-20]
england.media.misc 4 [+0]
england.education.teachers 3 [-2]
england.genealogy.misc 3 [-2]
england.people.royalty 2 [-14]
england.sport.misc 2 [+0]
england.weather 2 [-11]
england.announce 1 [-1]
england.biz.misc 1 [-8]
england.comp.misc 1 [-6]
england.culture.books 1 [-4]
england.education.language 1 [+0]
england.media.tv.misc 1 [-1]
england.rec.d-i-y 1 [+1]
england.announce.discuss 0 [-2]
england.biz.agriculture 0 [-5]
england.biz.innovation 0 [-4]
england.current-events.general 0 [-10]
england.education.misc 0 [-1]
england.jobs.wanted 0 [-2]
england.media.radio.misc 0 [+0]
england.news.newusers 0 [-2]
england.politics.immigration 0 [-5]
england.rec.pets 0 [-3]
england.religion.misc 0 [-1]
england.sport.rugby-union 0 [-5]
england.transport
>Of course, the UK hierarchy is a real hierarchy and these 'state' ones
>were made by a kook, so the resulting propagation is, I'm sure,
>pathethic.
England is not a f'in state you gimp, its a COUNTRY, a very old and
globally important country. We are not talking about some tinpot
satellite state here, Englands heritage is unsurpassed by 95% of the
worlds nations.
Anyway its now done and dusted so its tough shit if you don't like it,
although you could always have a go at rmgrouping them <sniggers>
--
Want to create an alt.* group?
Well take a look at Hamish McSnetters newgroup emporium-
M.J.Powell
>
>England is not a f'in state you gimp, its a COUNTRY, a very old and
>globally important country. We are not talking about some tinpot
>satellite state here, Englands heritage is unsurpassed by 95% of the
>worlds nations.
Who are in the 5%, IYO?
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
MUHATAMA COAT
Well being as I plucked the number off the top of my I don't know, but
i'll have a go just for the hell of it :o)
In the form of *Countries* (not areas) with an ongoing heritage that
hasnt stopped and started too much (ie not one attraction countries
such as Egypt (Pyramids,) Australia (Aboriginals,)) I would say-
Italy
Japan
France
India
Peru
Turkey
Spain
Germany
China
Austria
Its quite a difficult list to write due to countries boundaries
shifting, invasions of other populations and what is meant by the word
heritage, but I think this lot tops the list for me.
And yours are? ;-)
M.J.Powell
<happy...@hotmail.com> writes
None.
--
M.J.Powell
Rabid Bee
> globally important country. We are not talking about some tinpot
> satellite state here, Englands heritage is unsurpassed by 95% of the
> worlds nations.
<sigh - how often does this one have to pop up?>
Constitutionally speaking, England is not a country. England is a part
of the UK. It is not an independant state, and hence it is not a
country. The Kingdom of England was dissolved, never to exist again (so
far) in 1707.
Not that I object to the existence of England.* ngs, nor do I refute the
vitality of England's heritage (although I think it generally most
vibrant during those periods when it was most closely associated - in
one form or other - with the other constituent parts of the UK). I just
get fed up with the prevalence of that particular misconception, viz.
England is a country.
Cheers,alex
Andy Roberts
wrote:
>"M.J.Powell" <mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> posted:
>
>>snip
>>>
>>>England is not a f'in state you gimp, its a COUNTRY, a very old and
>>>globally important country. We are not talking about some tinpot
>>>satellite state here, Englands heritage is unsurpassed by 95% of the
>>>worlds nations.
>>
>>Who are in the 5%, IYO?
>
>Well being as I plucked the number off the top of my I don't know, but
>i'll have a go just for the hell of it :o)
>
>In the form of *Countries* (not areas) with an ongoing heritage that
>hasnt stopped and started too much (ie not one attraction countries
>such as Egypt (Pyramids,) Australia (Aboriginals,)) I would say-
>
>Italy
>Japan
>France
>India
>Peru
>Turkey
>Spain
>Germany
>China
>Austria
>
>
>Its quite a difficult list to write due to countries boundaries
>shifting, invasions of other populations and what is meant by the word
>heritage, but I think this lot tops the list for me.
>
>And yours are? ;-)
Greece,
Iraq
Persia
Kurdistahn
Romania.
--
Andy R
Barry Sowden
Rabid Bee wrote in message <3957F2...@mcmail.com>...
>> England is not a f'in state you gimp, its a COUNTRY, a very old and
>> globally important country. We are not talking about some tinpot
>> satellite state here, Englands heritage is unsurpassed by 95% of the
>> worlds nations.
>
>
>Constitutionally speaking, England is not a country. England is a part
>of the UK. It is not an independant state, and hence it is not a
>country. The Kingdom of England was dissolved, never to exist again (so
>far) in 1707.
>
>Not that I object to the existence of England.* ngs, nor do I refute the
>vitality of England's heritage (although I think it generally most
>vibrant during those periods when it was most closely associated - in
>one form or other - with the other constituent parts of the UK). I just
>get fed up with the prevalence of that particular misconception, viz.
>England is a country.
>
>Cheers,alex
I agree with everything you say here Alex, this could however open a whole
caseload of cans with worms.
The UK/Britain is lucky that her/his boundary's (how's that for PC) have
been stable for so long, few other European countries can say the same.
However I feel that constitutional boundary's rarely tell the whole story,
for instance ask any Basque which country they belong to. Such things
sometimes depend on your point of view regardless of constitution.
This can go down to any level, if you live within the government boundary of
Greater Manchester can you still say that you come from Lancashire (my
personal opinion is yes you can). But times change, down in my old stomping
ground of Kent I doubt if many people consider themselves a man of Kent or a
Kentish man just because they were born on a particular side of the Medway.
(does anyone know how that started by the way).
So even if the future constitutional Boundary is Europe we can still be
English, Scottish, Welsh French or German or indeed anything you want to be
within those areas.
We in Australia for instance have very strong local Loyalties I.e..
Melbourne V Adelaide V Sydney.
From the short time I spent in the USA and from conversing with Americans, I
get the feeling that too they have strong regional loyalties within the US.
It seems to be human nature that as countries combine (and indeed the world
with multinational companies) we try to seek more human scale communities.
Sorry about the length of this
Barry
MUHATAMA COAT
>> England is not a f'in state you gimp, its a COUNTRY, a very old and
>> globally important country. We are not talking about some tinpot
>> satellite state here, Englands heritage is unsurpassed by 95% of the
>> worlds nations.
>
><sigh - how often does this one have to pop up?>
>
>Constitutionally speaking, England is not a country. England is a part
>of the UK. It is not an independant state, and hence it is not a
>country. The Kingdom of England was dissolved, never to exist again (so
>far) in 1707.
I don't know what criteria you are using for a 'country,' but I
wouldn't be surprised than many other countries would not be countries
if also view through the jumble that is the English Constitution.
As far as I and another 50 million people are concerned, England IS a
country, if the constitution is not currently up-to-date with that
then tough, but increasingly the more you ask people the more they say
that we are a separate country.
Everything points to complete dismantlement of the Union.
>Not that I object to the existence of England.* ngs, nor do I refute the
>vitality of England's heritage (although I think it generally most
>vibrant during those periods when it was most closely associated - in
>one form or other - with the other constituent parts of the UK). I just
>get fed up with the prevalence of that particular misconception, viz.
>England is a country.
Nah, there is plenty of good history to be had from when we were
kicking Celtic ass :-)
Surreyman
village in England, and very small "loyalty areas" from
Dutch districts to African tribes to the famous split
between the Gilbert & Ellis Islands (one of the world's few
outright racist stamps - showing the "obvious" racial
differences between the islanders and therefore the reason
for separate independence).
I cannot believe anyone could argue against this
predominant fact.
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
andy roberts
>> England is not a f'in state you gimp, its a COUNTRY, a very old and
>> globally important country. We are not talking about some tinpot
>> satellite state here, Englands heritage is unsurpassed by 95% of the
>> worlds nations.
>
><sigh - how often does this one have to pop up?>
>
>Constitutionally speaking, England is not a country. England is a part
>of the UK. It is not an independant state, and hence it is not a
>country. The Kingdom of England was dissolved, never to exist again (so
>far) in 1707.
>
would argue that the re-emerging Scotland and Wales are not countries.
You could just as easily argue that Belgium and Holland are not countries
because of the lack of independence from the European super state, the taking
down of border controls and merging of the currencies.
What really matters is the reality of a Nation, not some abstracted legalistic
definition of statehood.
>Not that I object to the existence of England.* ngs, nor do I refute the
>vitality of England's heritage (although I think it generally most
>vibrant during those periods when it was most closely associated - in
>one form or other - with the other constituent parts of the UK). I just
>get fed up with the prevalence of that particular misconception, viz.
>England is a country.
>
It isn't a misconception, it's a more useful and lifelike definition of the
word country, as traditionally applied to old world nations, than yours.
How can Scotland be a country but England not?
Andy R
--
england.* newsgroups now created: www.england.news-admin.org/
For access, please ask your ISP to add groups from the list at
http://www.england.news-admin.org/england-newsgroups.html
John Cartmell
<bso...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> This can go down to any level, if you live within the government
> boundary of Greater Manchester can you still say that you come from
> Lancashire (my personal opinion is yes you can).
amongst the young of eg Salford that Lancashire is very distinctly
somewhere else. On the other hand, I living on the Mersey flood plain just
south of the river would like to pretend that I still live in Lancashire!
--
John Cartmell, Manchester UK
Fleur Designs
bespoke products for individuals & education services
craft products ~ information products ~ information services
Barry Sowden
Surreyman wrote in message <0644ebab...@usw-ex0108-061.remarq.com>...
>You are absolutely right, of course. Down to village v.
>village in England, and very small "loyalty areas" from
>Dutch districts to African tribes to the famous split
>between the Gilbert & Ellis Islands (one of the world's few
>outright racist stamps - showing the "obvious" racial
>differences between the islanders and therefore the reason
>for separate independence).
I can remember as a teenager getting very drunk in Brussels largely because
the Dutch/Flemish speakers were buying me beers to outdo all the Pernots
bought for me by the French speakers, now that's my idea of rivalry.
Do you know roughly when this stamp was, or maybe a site where I can view it
as I would be very interested in seeing it.
Also can you tell me some more about these Islands the only reference I can
find shows them both as UK dependencies, is this still the case. Also
apparently The Ellis Islands are now known as Tuvalu, maybe since
independence.
Thanks
Barry
Surreyman
that the Dutch/Flemish rivalries are (almost) worse than
the Belgian Flemish/French!! And none of the groups need
rivalry to drink a lot!
Re Gilbert & Ellice:
Briefly, these are numerous small islands in the SW
Pacific, the two groups being separated by some 500 miles.
They were British Protectorates in the 19C and were
combined into a Crown Colony in 1915.
They were split into two separate Crown Colonies in 1976
and became separately independent in 1979.
The Gilberts became Kiribati. Interesting sideline -
pronounced "Kiribass". "Kiribass" was the nearest the local
language could pronounce "Gilberts". A local missionary's
typewriter had lost its "S". Since "TI" could almost be
pronounced as "S" i.e. in "nation", he therefore
substituted "TI" whenever "S" was needed. This has now
passed into the local spellings, including that of the
nation's name!
The Ellice Islands became Tuvalu. The very first separate
Tuvalu stamp, printed in 1976, showed the very different
profiles, hair types, etc. of the Gilbert islanders &
Ellice islanders, side by side, with a separating bar
inscribed "Separation January 1st. 1976".
The stamp is catalogued as Tuvalu SG1 by Stanley Gibbons
and is worth all of about 50p!
Roger Whitehead
wrote:
> A local missionary's
> typewriter had lost its "S". Since "TI" could almost be
Reminds me of G.B. Shaw's justification for spelling "fish" as "ghoti".
Regards,
Roger
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Roger Whitehead,
Oxted, Surrey, England
Barry Sowden
Surreyman wrote in message <1ae25248...@usw-ex0109-068.remarq.com>...
.>Re Gilbert & Ellice:
>
>Briefly, these are numerous small islands in the SW
>Pacific, the two groups being separated by some 500 miles.
>They were British Protectorates in the 19C and were
>combined into a Crown Colony in 1915.
>
>They were split into two separate Crown Colonies in 1976
>and became separately independent in 1979.
>
>The Gilberts became Kiribati. Interesting sideline -
>pronounced "Kiribass". "Kiribass" was the nearest the local
>typewriter had lost its "S". Since "TI" could almost be
>substituted "TI" whenever "S" was needed. This has now
>passed into the local spellings, including that of the
>nation's name!
>
>The Ellice Islands became Tuvalu. The very first separate
>Tuvalu stamp, printed in 1976, showed the very different
>profiles, hair types, etc. of the Gilbert islanders &
>Ellice islanders, side by side, with a separating bar
>inscribed "Separation January 1st. 1976".
>
>The stamp is catalogued as Tuvalu SG1 by Stanley Gibbons
>and is worth all of about 50p!
Many thanks for the above info, I have now found Tuvalu OK in the world data
book but all I can find for the Gilberts is the Republic of Kiribati which
seems to consist of the Gilbert Islands the Line group and Phoenix group of
islands.
Thanks again
Barry
Rabid Bee
> wouldn't be surprised than many other countries would not be countries
> if also view through the jumble that is the English Constitution.
That's the point - there is no English constitution. England has no
independant executive, no independant legislature, it is not represented
internationally by ambassadors or other representatives. In 1707, England
and Scotland were merged to form the Kingdom of Great Britain, and the UK of
GB and Ireland was formed in 1801. England has not existed as a seperate
entity since 1707. I accept that, within the UK, the various constituent
units have distinct features which make them individual - for instance
Scotland has a law-code different to the other three units, education is
administered in each region seperately, and of course Scotland and Wales now
have their own legislatures (although these are in no way independant of
Downing Street or Westminster). All that that points to is that the UK has
been an unofficially federated country since 1707.
> As far as I and another 50 million people are concerned, England IS a
> country, if the constitution is not currently up-to-date with that
> then tough, but increasingly the more you ask people the more they say
> that we are a separate country.
I disagree - I still feel that most English would consider themselves part of
the UK and would still support the Union. And I don't think anyone would be
stupid enough to say that we're part of a seperate country - half of the
present national government are not English, whilst many other national
figures in politics, sport and the media are also not English.
> Everything points to complete dismantlement of the Union.
I totally disagree. Personally I'd favour a more federal approach to the
country - with England divided into a few federal units, whilst Wales,
Scotland and Northern Ireland keep their own assemblies. Give each federal
unit an assembly with the powers of the Scottish parliament, and leave
Westminster to be a truly British Parliament, administering national, rather
than regional, issues.
I realy don't feel that the union is close to collapse, though. I meet very
few Englishmen who favour independence, whilst the Scottish Nationalists only
do well in local and European elections, and Plaid Cymru have actualy
recently dropped their support for independence. I think most people
recognise that all four regions are stronger united than seperate.
> >Not that I object to the existence of England.* ngs, nor do I refute the
> >vitality of England's heritage (although I think it generally most
> >vibrant during those periods when it was most closely associated - in
> >one form or other - with the other constituent parts of the UK). I just
> >get fed up with the prevalence of that particular misconception, viz.
> >England is a country.
>
> Nah, there is plenty of good history to be had from when we were
> kicking Celtic ass :-)
That's what I was saying! I only said "associated" - I didn't say in what
ways...
Cheers, alex
Rabid Bee
> caseload of cans with worms.
> The UK/Britain is lucky that her/his boundary's (how's that for PC) have
> been stable for so long, few other European countries can say the same.
> However I feel that constitutional boundary's rarely tell the whole story,
> for instance ask any Basque which country they belong to. Such things
> sometimes depend on your point of view regardless of constitution.
Personally, I think Spain is an excellent comparison for the UK.
Substitute Castile for England, and Navarre, Aragon, and Catalonia for
Scotland, Ireland and Wales. And I am intentionally restraining my
argument to the purely legalistic/constatutionbal sense - otherwise it
does get too confusing. I think the original argument just conveniently
forgot that one very strong element of the English national identity is
Britishness.
> This can go down to any level, if you live within the government boundary of
> Greater Manchester can you still say that you come from Lancashire (my
> personal opinion is yes you can).
Not if you're from the part that was formerly Chesire, of course :-)
Does this mean that someone from Abingdon born post 1974 is still really
from Berkshire?
> We in Australia for instance have very strong local Loyalties I.e..
> Melbourne V Adelaide V Sydney.
So do I - I'm incredibly parochial, and very proud to be from East
Berks. I'm also fiercely proud of being English. I just don't also
suppress any pride I have in coming from the UK. Overlapping
identities.
Cheers, Alex
Barry Sowden
Rabid Bee wrote in message <3958B95C...@man.ac.uk>...
>> I don't know what criteria you are using for a 'country,' but I
>> wouldn't be surprised than many other countries would not be countries
>> if also view through the jumble that is the English Constitution.
>
Just a side question here does the UK/Britain have a seperate written
constitution to compare with say the US or Australian one.
.>> Everything points to complete dismantlement of the Union.
>
>I totally disagree. Personally I'd favour a more federal approach to the
>country - with England divided into a few federal units, whilst Wales,
>Scotland and Northern Ireland keep their own assemblies. Give each federal
>unit an assembly with the powers of the Scottish parliament, and leave
>Westminster to be a truly British Parliament, administering national,
rather
>than regional, issues.
I agree with you Alex but it does pose problems if the Federal Govenment is
a European one, does each unit ie England, Wales and Scotland (and what
about the channel islands and Isle of Man let alone two seperate ireland
ones) enter as equel 'states'
or is the United Kingdom a single 'State'.
Because westminister handles all forign affairs Scotland for instance would
not be able to opt out of Joining the European Union.
>
>I realy don't feel that the union is close to collapse, ..........
>........I think most people recognise that all four regions are stronger
>united than seperate.
>
Very true unity is strengh, I suspect though that that each unit would like
to be seen as an equal member. How you decide equlity mind you is a problem
on its own.
>> >Not that I object to the existence of England.* ngs, nor do I refute the
>> >vitality of England's heritage (although I think it generally most
>> >vibrant during those periods when it was most closely associated - in
>> >one form or other - with the other constituent parts of the UK). I just
>> >get fed up with the prevalence of that particular misconception, viz.
>> >England is a country.
>>
.>
Maybe because England has been the dominant part of the UK for so long it is
difficult to devolve a separate English identity from a British one.This may
be a shame as I feel that in the future, such regional identities in an ever
more complex Global Village, will be important.
Barry
Roger Whitehead
> Just a side question here does the UK/Britain have a seperate written
> constitution
We wish. There is no written constitution you can point to as such,
just a collection of documents and parts of others, and various
conventions, some unwritten. Technically, it's called a mucking fuddle.
Surreyman
Surreyman
wide-flung sparsely populated island groups.
CG Luxford
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, MUHATAMA COAT wrote:
> dene...@deepthot.org (Jay Denebeim) posted:
>
> >Of course, the UK hierarchy is a real hierarchy and these 'state' ones
> >were made by a kook, so the resulting propagation is, I'm sure,
> >pathethic.
>
> globally important country.
Of course, most states are also countries. The UK is unusual in that it
is a state comprising three and a bit countries.
I've asked my ISP for the England.* heirarchy (as has at least one other
person using the same server) but it hasn't turned up yet. I do hope mr
Coat isn't typical of the people who one finds on the England.* groups.
Chris,
Rabid Bee
> a European one, does each unit ie England, Wales and Scotland (and what
> about the channel islands and Isle of Man let alone two seperate ireland
> ones) enter as equel 'states'
> or is the United Kingdom a single 'State'.
Clearly the latter. A federal system would only be a different form of
local and regional government. Individual US states are not represented
at the UN, neither are the various "republics" and autonomous regions of
Russia. The UK would still be the country, regional devolution would
just allow I feel for more appropriate regional government.
Anyway, England would be too large a unit to be administered as a single
federal unit - Scotland has a pop of c. 5 million, England c. 50
million. Divide England into 6-8 regions, add to taht Scotland, Wales
and Ireland, and create a uniform federal system whereby local and
central government have clearly defined and exclussive spheres of
activity.
Cheers, Alex
Barry Sowden
Rabid Bee wrote in message <395A6F...@mcmail.com>...
>> I agree with you Alex but it does pose problems if the Federal Govenment
is
>> a European one, does each unit ie England, Wales and Scotland (and what
>> about the channel islands and Isle of Man let alone two seperate ireland
>> ones) enter as equel 'states'
>> or is the United Kingdom a single 'State'.
>Clearly the latter. A federal system would only be a different form of
>local and regional government.
Yep makes sense,
>Individual US states are not represented
>at the UN, neither are the various "republics" and autonomous regions of
>Russia. The UK would still be the country, regional devolution would
>just allow I feel for more appropriate regional government.
>
This I suspect would be one of the main bars to a 'United States of Europe'
(for want of a better phrase). No country would be happy to give up their
individual sovereignty, seat on the UN etc. especaly the UK and France with
a permanent seat on the Security Council.
.
>Anyway, England would be too large a unit to be administered as a single
>federal unit - Scotland has a pop of c. 5 million, England c. 50
>million. Divide England into 6-8 regions, add to taht Scotland, Wales
>and Ireland, and create a uniform federal system whereby local and
>central government have clearly defined and exclussive spheres of
>activity.
>
I go along with that, no reason why the devolution should stop with Scotland
and Wales. England is a lot more then just London and the South East,
regardless of what Westminster might think.
Hmm I suppose we could start with a large North-South dividing line at
Watford :-) .
Barry
Don Aitken
attempt to sort out some recurring problems of definition. Maybe it
might form a basis for part of a FAQ for this group. All corrections,
additions, etc. gratefully received - see "Outstanding Question" for
one I haven't been able to resolve.
Q. What is the UK? Is it the same as Britain, Great Britain or
England?
DISCLAIMER: This description is confined to legal and other factual
issues which seem to be capable of "correct" answers. It does not deal
with psychological questions about "Englishness", "Britishness" etc.,
nor with issues of race. The question of whether there is an English
or a British race (or both) and if so how this should be defined is
IMO just not a sensible question.
The main source for most of the following is De Smith's
"Constitutional and Administrative Law"
Preliminary: States and Nations
The British Isles are divided between two countries which are
independent states in international law, namely 1) the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and 2) the Republic of Ireland.
The United Kingdom is a unitary not a federal state. Unlike the states
of the USA or Germany the subordinate jurisdictions of the UK
(Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) do not have legislatures with
their own areas of _exclusive_ jurisdiction. The primary principle
of our constitutional law is that the UK Parliament can do anything.
England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland have all been regarded for
centuries as nations, and are still correctly referred to as such.
This has nothing to do with legal status.
Concentric Circles
If, like me, you live in England, you are part of a number of
different entities of increasing size, as follows -
1. England
2. England and Wales
3. Great Britain
4. The United Kingdom
5. The United Kingdom and Islands
6. The British Isles
7. The Common Travel Area
8. The European Territories of the United Kingdom
9. The European Union
10. The United Kingdom and Colonies
11. The Commonwealth
1. England
There is surprisingly little to say about England, except that it
contains about 80% of the population of the UK and hence is
overwhelmingly dominant in relation to all UK-wide political issues.
It is an important administrative unit, and many UK government
departments (such as the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of
Health) have jurisdiction only in England.
2. England and Wales
This unit, which doesn't even have its own name, is extremely
important, because it defines the jurisdiction of the English courts,
usually just called "the jurisdiction" in legal terminology. It is the
area of application of English law (which strictly should be called
the law of England and Wales, but rarely is). There is no such thing
as British or United Kingdom law, because there are no British or
United Kingdom courts. Many statutes apply to the whole of the UK, but
courts in Scotland or Northern Ireland may (and frequently do)
interpret them differently from the English courts. This is why the
Lockerbie trial is taking place in a Scottish court. Many
administrative bodies have jurisdiction over England and Wales.
3. Great Britain
This is a both a geographical term referring to the island on which
the greater parts of England, Wales and Scotland are situated, and a
legal one referring to those three territories considered together.
The island of Rockall, several hundred miles out in the Atlantic, is
legally part of Scotland, although actually closer to Ireland. Some,
though not many, administrative bodies have jurisdiction over Great
Britain.
4. The United Kingdom
Great Britain and Northern Ireland together make up the United
Kingdom, hence the full name. I suspect that the UK is probably the
only country in the world whose average inhabitant has no idea what
its legal name actually is. This defines the area represented in the
UK Parliament and for which that Parliament normally makes laws. It is
also a citizenship unit (although only since 1981). It does _not_
define the area for which the UK government is responsible in
international law - see below.
5. The United Kingdom and Islands
This includes a further three jurisdictions which have never been part
of England, Wales, Scotland or Ireland and are not part of the UK but
over which the Queen is sovereign and for which the UK government is
internationally responsible. They are the Isle of Man, in the Irish
Sea between England, Scotland and Ireland, and the Bailiwicks of
Guernsey and Jersey, which are the two parts of the Channel Islands,
off the coast of France, and were part of the Duchy of Normandy before
William I conquered England. They have their own citizenship,
representative institutions and laws (offshore banking and stamps
looming large as in many small territories).
6. The British Isles
Another geographical term referring to the whole group of islands
adjoining Great Britain, including Ireland. Politically it includes
the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, and the Isle of Man, but
not the Channel Islands. Irish people may detect political
implications in this term, and it tends to be avoided, although there
is no obvious alternative. The term used in connection with the
Northern Irish peace process is just "the Isles", which could be
anywhere. The term "British Islands" was once used but seems to be
obsolete. One obvious alternative "Great Britain and Ireland" is also
avoided because it used to be part of the title of the British
monarch.
7. The Common Travel Area
This is the area from which people can enter UK ports without being
subject to routine immigration control. Same as the previous, but
includes the Channel Islands. Immigration control has never been
applied to Republic of Ireland citizens. Irish citizens have always
been entitled to vote if resident in the UK and in general are not
treated as aliens, although the Republic only recently, as part of the
peace process, extended the same treatment to UK citizens.
8. The European Territories of the United Kingdom
This means the United Kingdom and Islands, plus Gibraltar, which is a
British Colony with its own citizenship. Citizens of all parts of this
area are UK Nationals in European Union law.
*Outstanding Question
Does this also apply to residents of the Sovereign Base Areas of
Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus? _Are_ there any residents of those
areas apart from UK service personnel?
9. The European Union
The UK and Republic of Ireland are among the 15 members of the EU,
which is an international organisation, not a state, although it has
its own law, which is directly applicable in all member states through
their own courts. EU citizens have the right to settle in any member
state and in the UK can vote in local but not national elections.
10. The United Kingdom and Colonies
This is the total area for which the UK government has international
responsibility. The remaining colonies (none of which has a population
of more than 10,000) are mainly in the Caribbean and Pacific.
11. The Commonwealth
An international organisation most, though not all, of whose members
were once British colonies. A minority of Commonwealth countries (such
as Canada) have Queen Elizabeth II as their Head of State, although
most are republics. Commonwealth citizens are not aliens in the UK,
and can vote, although they are now subject to the same immigration
controls as aliens. The Republic of Ireland is not a member of the
Commonwealth.
NOTE: "British" and "Britain"
Like the USA, the UK suffers from having no convenient adjective to
describe the country or its people. The best thing that can be said
for "British" is that it is not quite as misleading as "American", but
it is nevertheless the established term for "relating to the UK". So
"British citizen" is correct. This causes endless confusion and a fair
amount of ill-will when applied to the people of Northern Ireland.
They are British citizens, and so "British" in that sense (although
they can also be citizens of the Republic of Ireland if they wish, as
many do). They are not from Great Britain, so they are not "British"
in that sense (i.e. as distinct from Irish).
The term "British subject" is obsolete. It used to mean anyone who
owed allegiance to the British sovereign, and therefore included
citizens of independent commonwealth countries as well as the UK. The
modern equivalent is "commonwealth citizen". There was no separate UK
citizenship until 1948 when the term "citizen of the United Kingdom
and Colonies" was used. Since 1981 it has been "British citizen" (the
first use of the term "British" in this context). "UK national" is a
technical term of EU law with a slightly different meaning (see 8.
above).
So what about "Britain"? This is not a term with any legal meaning,
but if you ask the English person in the street what country they live
in surveys show that more will answer "Britain" than anything else. So
it should probably be taken as a back-formation from "British" hence
meaning "United Kingdom".
NOTE: SPORT
Most people probably encounter foreign countries through their sports
teams more often than in any other way. We create even greater
confusion here, since practice varies between different sports. In
most older sports (e.g. rugby) there are teams representing the
historic nations of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. In others
(e.g. soccer) there are separate teams for Northern Ireland and the
Republic of Ireland. There may also be teams representing the whole of
the British Isles (rugby again). It is only in the Olympic Games,
where participation is strictly on the basis of nationality, and in
sports focussed on the Olympics, such as track and field athletics,
that a UK or "British" team is likely to feature. As a final
curiosity, our leading cricket team, although always called "England",
actually represents England and Wales. Scotland and Ireland have their
own teams.
Don Aitken
Roger Whitehead
> 3. Great Britain
>
> This is a both a geographical term referring to the island on which
> the greater parts of England, Wales and Scotland are situated, and a
> legal one referring to those three territories considered together.
Prompted by your informative posting, I looked it up the OED. It offers
this, under "Britain":
The proper name of the whole island containing England, Wales, and
Scotland, with their dependencies; more fully called Great Britain; now
also used for the British state or empire as a whole.
After the OE. period, Britain was used only as a historical term, until
about the time of Henry VIII and Edward VI, when it came again into
practical politics in connexion with the efforts made to unite England
and Scotland; in 1604 James I was proclaimed ‘King of Great Britain’;
and this name was adopted for the United Kingdom, at the Union in 1707
[ends]
What do you suppose it means by "their dependencies"? Are they the
"Islands" in your "The United Kingdom and Islands"?
Roger Whitehead
> most older sports (e.g. rugby) there are teams representing the
> historic nations of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland.
OTOH, the British Lions team contains players from all four countries,
including the Republic of Ireland.
> our leading cricket team, although always called "England",
> actually represents England and Wales. Scotland and Ireland have their
> own teams.
But the England cricket team was, relatively recently, captained by a
Scot, Mike Denness.
Confusing, what? 8-)
Barry Sowden
Don Aitken wrote in message <395baab6...@news.freeuk.net>...
.
>
>11. The Commonwealth
>
>An international organisation most, though not all, of whose members
>were once British colonies. A minority of Commonwealth countries (such
>as Canada) have Queen Elizabeth II as their Head of State, although
>most are republics. Commonwealth citizens are not aliens in the UK,
>and can vote, although they are now subject to the same immigration
>controls as aliens. The Republic of Ireland is not a member of the
>Commonwealth.
>
The opposite is not necessarily true though, Australia is not yet a
Republic and still has the queen as head of state yet UK citizens can not
vote here until they become Australian Citizens then it becomes compulsory
i.e.. you are fined if you don't vote.
Barry