Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Climate

This article contains nothing on the UK's climate, for instance, how it could be placed in Köppen climate classification. --Barberio 17:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

mains voltage supplied at 240v

The 230 is only a specification, it is still supplied at 240v.

See http://www.answers.com/topic/mains-electricity

240V is within tolerance and it has not, therefore, been necessary to change all of the equipment to meet the harmonised standard yet. That doesn't alter the fact that the UK voltage is defined as 230 and this is what should be shown here.

BTW, Wikipedia articles are not usually considered satisfactory references Mucky Duck 14:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, 230v it is. All the EC members with 220v electricity had to raise it to 230v and those with 240v had to reduce it to 230v quite a few years ago. The result being that older 220v designs can now be used in the UK/Ireland without major problems (although their life will more than likely be shortened) and older 240v designs can be used elsewhere in the EC. Of course newer equipment is designed for 230v so it should be happy anywhere in the EC. The actual voltage supplied does fluctate -- I've seen it over 250v in the old days: that caused problems with electronic equipment although kettles and motors hardly noticed -- but the electricity suppliers are now aiming at 230v plus or minus, so it should be there or thereabouts. The old specs (240v +/- 6%) translated to anywhere between 225.6v and 254.4v whereas the new specs (230V +10%/-6%) translate to somewhere between 216.2v and 253v. Of course since 240v lies within both ranges it's quite true to say that 240v is still supplied but that doesn't change the fact that the allowable range is different. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Maps

reqmapin|England I think we could do with a map showing the borders of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - perhaps with major cities marked too. It would also be useful on Politics of the United Kingdom Cheers Andeggs 15:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

There is already a map showing the location of major cities in the geography section, however this does not include state boundaries (although modification to include boundary lines probably wouldn't be too dificult). Maybe a map similar to this one which appears in France#Administrative divisions could work well; with the thicker, darker lines showing the state boundaries between Scotland, England and Wales and the thinner, lighter lines showing either regional boundaries (i.e. North-East, Midlands etc.) or county boundaries. State and County boundaries would probably be best although I fear the small size of counties might make the map unclear. Doesn't such a map already exist on Wikipedia somewhere? Canderra 15:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that sort of thing would be perfect. I can't find anything like it for the UK on wikipedia which is amazing really when you think we have maps for so much else (e.g. all constituencies!). Let me know if you find one or can make one.Andeggs 16:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"There is already a map showing the location of major cities in the geography section" This shows Felixstowe, but not Sheffield, Grangemouth, but not Dundee, Falmouth, but not Swansea, Coventry or Leicester. I've said it before and I'll say it again; it's far from ideal. Rednaxela 21:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

UK

I've added a blank one to the commons if anyone wants to use it as a base. Kmusser 17:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on a version, although I fear it won't be good enough. There are a few problems with the above map: Extra lochs have appeared in Scotland, there are two bubbles between England and Wales. The Welsh border seems to extend up the Severn estuary.... Which cities to include is a problem; text may clash if the cities are too close. Also which font to use, regular or bold, underlines for the four capitals etc etc Rednaxela 00:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should avoid "county" boundaries as it is an ambiguous term. A popular definition includes all the unitary authorities as counties and that would look silly, other definitions split Yorkshire up into 5 or so separate "counties". Either stick with the constituent countries and capitals or use the Government Office Regions (which is what the map on England does. Yorkshire Phoenix 08:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Archive

What's the archive policy on this page? Discussions from the last week (indeed from yesterday) seem to have been archived already. Mucky Duck 09:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I archived because the page had reached 100kb in length (well, 99!). There is no policy, as such - people (usually me) just archive when its fairly long. I archived all talk which I figured was 'dead' (I wanted to archive the Britain stuff above but as I'd been involved, felt I better not), but if you want to resurrect something just retrieve it from the archives. --Robdurbar 18:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I pulled conversations that were only a couple weeks old back out. Kmusser 18:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

removing sources

I just reverted an edit because I saw an unregistered user remove a source. Selmo

Demographics

I removed this: "The part of Ireland still under UK rule has been subject to invasion and migration from Britain-most notably in the Settlement of Ulster by Scottish Protestants. ". Not that I disagree with it, but the section is about demographics, not history. Also this is just one aspect of a hugely complex subject, namely the migration of different peoples between the different parts of the UK, by regular movement and by conquest and colonisation. It seems wrong to mention this one aspect without mentioning the huge migration of Irish to mainland Britain, the migration of English to Scotland, the conquest of the Welsh, and a whole host of other subjects. DJ Clayworth 15:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above. The plantation of Ulster is significant historically but in a section on demographics it doesn't make sense to single it out amongst all the other instances of migration, invasion and colonisation. --Ryano 16:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It has an extremely high historical significance. The Troubles in NI have their root in that migration. (More accurately described as Colonisation).GiollaUidir 16:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't dispute its historical significance, and I would hope it is adequately covered in the History of the United Kingdom article. However in the context of a section on the demographics of the UK it's hard to justify singling it out above the many other examples of migration and colonisation which have produced the current demographic mix. --Ryano 17:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I put the first part of that edit in. The rest of the demographics talked about various invaders. In an article about the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' (that's the official title of your state, by the way: the meaning of the word and can be found here: www.m-w.com) there was not a single mention of the British as invaders. Why? Why were those particular invaders omitted? In that precise context, it was only correct that I mentioned that fact that British invaders came to Ireland and that is how this small part of Ireland (currently) remains part of the UK. It is only your nationalism which is denying these particular invaders of this (current) part of the United Kingdom. 193.1.172.163 19:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Your knowledge of history and nationalism of my country appears to leave a lot to be desired, 193*. It wasn't "British invaders" to start with - it was Normans. The people of Ireland were already British at this time, and had been for more than 1,000 years. As for the meaning of the word and, I think most people with a modicum of intelligence can see the context in which it is used.

So, basically, your nationalism is preventing you from seeing a bigger picture and is convincing you that somehow "British invaders" arrived in Ireland at some point. --Mal 18:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but those discuss external migrations to the current country (who's existence, rightly or wrongly, cannot be denied.) As a compromise, though, a sentence on 'the multiple immigrations between the constitutent countries' could be worthwhile, to emphasise that this happens. --Robdurbar 19:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I would support that too. DJ Clayworth 19:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Illogical might-makes-right self-serving rhetoric. By the precise same train of thought, in 1919 you would not use the word invasion to describe how Galway, Cork and Dublin became part of the UK. The British held power so apparently that nullifies the entire invasion. Christ almighty, guys. Orwell would be inspired by you if he were rewriting the Newspeak part again. It was an invasion, and the native Irish nationalist community has remained subject to this British invasion in all its sectarian ignomy, an invasion/ status quo which has been supported to the teeth by the entire aparatus of the British state since 1969. You are not talking to a reader of The Sun here. 193.1.172.163 19:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What an interesting theory. Because a country I once lived in invaded another country, my views on editing articles should be ignored. DJ Clayworth 19:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

For the second time this anonymous user has refused to play by the rules and has violated 3RR. I have reported this violation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:193.1.172.163_reported_by_User:Gsd2000_.28Result:.29 Gsd2000 23:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

User:80.6.206.189 keeps changing the demographics section. I have rv twice but would like to get some consensus, I have changed it to

Immigration has come through interaction with continental Europe and international ties forged by the British Empire. Constant waves of immigration hit the UK, with Europe, Africa and South-East Asia being the biggest areas from where people emigrate. As of 2001, 7.9% of the UK's population identified themselves as an 'ethnic minority'.<ref> [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=273 Ethnicity] National Statistics Online, Accessed [[June 3]] [[2006]] </ref>

as I much prefer the National Census than Matthew Lynn as a secondary source and the BBC as a secondary source of an estimated figure! Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 23:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Lists

I have removed lots of names in lists. Can we please try to keep the names down. I have been very harsh but the section read very badly, would you pleases consider this if more names are to be added. The UK article is too long and overly long lists are the easiest things to go. Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 23:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I did something similar to Scotland a few weeks ago. But I also linked a list, from an external source rather than a random list based on the personal favourites of whoever happens to have been editing Wikipedia. You might like to do the same. Viewfinder 00:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - unfortunately I seem remember that people (myself included) have done this before, and then lo and behold, the list grdually expands again. --Robdurbar 06:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure it will regrow but we can but try! I'm not sure when you mean by, I also linked a list, from an external source. Do you mean external from Wikipedia or a category like Category:British musical groups?Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 11:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

For things like famous UK bands rather than a making up a list ourself we should reference an external source and use that. See Scotland's talk page for an example and in this page's archives about universities. Thanks/wangi 12:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll

Naming conventions are currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#UK geography terminology straw poll. Please join the discussion there to define a United Kingdom-wide policy. Mammal4 09:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

4 constituent countries

On a point of information, UK is consitiuted of 5 countries technically (see Constitutional status of Cornwall). The point is pedantic certainly, but, it has to be said, valid, and should be mentioned. Cornwall has a parliament, if further proof were needed. (Graldensblud 17:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)).

The Cornwall argument is just a theory with plenty of holes in it. The Stannery parliment was for Cornish miners not Cornwall and has been suspended for several centuries. A parliament has been proposed for every English region but that wouldn't make them consitiuent countries. josh (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

josh is completely correct. The Cornwall 'parliament' has absolutely no standing at all. DJ Clayworth 20:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Desuetude has relatively little legal standing in the UK, and it was stated in the Commons in ?1977? that the Charter of Pardon is still in effect. The Court of Chivalry sat in 1954 after several centuries of absence (and there was much official comment on how it still technically existed). The status of the current nationalists purporting to be a parliament certainly is a seperate issue, but the status of the Stannary Parliament as it stands suspended since 1752 (which holds right of veto on uk legislation) is set in law. Existed ergo exists. Not "proposed".

For cornish miners not cornwall; "jurisdiction of the Cornish Stannary Parliament covered the four Cornish stannary towns: Truro, Lostwithiel, Launceston and Helston. Since these four boroughs covered the whole of Cornwall, the Cornish Stannary Parliament acted as a legislative body for the whole county" [Wikipedia]. I'm looking for the wording of the 1508 treaty.

Laws were worded "England and Cornwall" prior to the union with Wales, just as they were later "England and Wales". I'll dig a source for that if needed but i've encountered several. Maps up until the c17th show it in a different colour and everything.

Present situation/revivalists notwithstanding, there are actually relatively few holes in the arguement. Comments?

[[[User:Graldensblud|Graldensblud]] 20:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)]

Population

Is over 60 million now. I haven't changed it though. Troubleshooter 09:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The [BBC] quote it as 60.2 million, which I think must be rounded quite heavily. Can anybody find a reliable figure that's more accurate, or will we stick with 60,200,000? 195.224.127.180 10:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"60,200,000" suggests the population is no more than 60,199,199 and no less than 60,000,001: "60.2 million" makes no such claim. Yorkshire Phoenix 10:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

ACtually 60,200,000 suggests the population is 60,200,000, 60.2 million suggests the population is anywhere between 60,150,000 and 60,249,999. 203.114.140.222 20:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The ONS say it is 60,209,500 [1]. It has been updated accordingly. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Welsh

Could I suggest editors talk here instead of reverting over Welsh being included in official languages. Also why was Welsh and Scottish Gaelic not treated the same? Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 13:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself but I know that Welsh is an official language in Wales (and thus the United Kingdom) but I don't know if the same is true of Scottish Gaelic, Ulster Scots or Cornish. Yorkshire Phoenix 13:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

All those languages are official minority languages but no offical languages. The official language is the one used by the government and Welsh has never been uttered in Westminster. josh (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Government =/= Westminster: if you change your address to one in Wales the DVLA will supply a bilingual licence whether you want it or not. That's official government use, as was the way the information booklets about higher education issued when I was at school that were published jointly by the Home Office and Welsh Office included Welsh (and my school was in Yorkshire, not Wales!) Yorkshire Phoenix 14:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The DVLA are civil service not the government. The government are the 600+ MPs and the dusty lot in the House of Lords. josh (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No, the government are the few MPs and Lords with ministerial portfolios, their civil servants and the departments and agencies who deliver their services. Yorkshire Phoenix 14:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Semantics never was my strong point. However, official languages are a legislative issue. If one were to be reconised it would be done by an Act of Parliament. This has never been done but as every single Act of Parliament is published and debated over in English and no other language it becomes a no brainer.

Also one of the effects of making a language official is that every piece of government documentation has to be published in that language. While some documents are translated in to Welsh many aren't. It would be unthinkable to not publish a government document in English. Until such time as the government pass legistation stating that all documents must be published in Welsh as well it is not an official language of this country. josh (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Then, may I suggest we compromise by stating that there is no official language for the UK, and list all British languages that are officially recognised? Yorkshire Phoenix 07:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, AFAIK there are no official languages for the UK as a whole. Although I must add that Welsh has been uttered in Westminster whatever difference that makes. Owain (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The legal situation is, I believe, that services must be provided in Welsh, and documents translated into Welsh, in Wales. So you can go into a government office in Cardiff and expect to be served in Welsh, but not in London. We should probably explain the situation rather than just say is/is not an official language. DJ Clayworth 13:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the Welsh Language Act 1993, an obligation is placed on the public sector to treat the Welsh and English languages equally in the provision of services to the public in Wales (direct.gov.uk). However, The Welsh Language Act 1967 guaranteed the right to use Welsh in court, and also provided for its use in public administration. (www.bwrdd-yr-iaith.org.uk - the Welsh Language Board). The upshot is that any Welsh speaker can access Government servies and documentation in Welsh in any part of the United Kingdom and not just Wales. christopherson78 13:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not true that one can access Welsh language services elsewhere in the United Kingdom, as the Welsh Language Acts were restricted to Wales. Furthermore, the right to use Welsh in court (in Wales alone) was established in the 1993 Act, not 1967. Notwithstanding those dry technicalities, Wales is unequivocally not an official language of the United Kingdom. Whilst we lack our own definition of an official language, the European Union does not, and they treat Welsh as a minority language, not an official language of the UK. This is also the position taken by the British government in everyday discourse. Thus, English is the only official language of the United Kingdom (as established by precedent), but Welsh is official in Wales (as, in fact, it was even before 1993). Bastin 20:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"Welsh has never been uttered in Westminster" Lloyd George's first language was Welsh, for the record, so this statement is unlikely to be true. [[[User:Graldensblud|Graldensblud]] 20:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)]

That BBC link is very interesting, and we should modify the statements about Welsh in this article to reflect it. Unless anyone has any counterexamples. DJ Clayworth 22:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Novice wiki user here. Are English and Welsh the two official languages of the UK? What about Scots Gaeilic and Ulster Scots? And what about Irish in NI? Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.70.238.31 (talk) .

There is no act of parliament that has ever defined official languages for the UK. However, the European Union has defined English as the sole offical language for the UK for its purposes. Although Welsh is an offical language of Wales and Welsh services can be accessed in other parts of the UK it is by no-means 'official' for the whole country. The problem with Scots Gaelic is that the language has never been spoken across the whole of Scotland. Gaelic was only ever a living language in the Scottish highlands and islands. Scots living in Central and Southern Scotland (i.e. the vast majority of the population) originally spoke a language called Scots (also known as Lowland Scots). Possibly the most famous speaker was the poet Robert Burns who was from Ayrshire (about 35 miles south of Glasgow). Although the devolved Scottish Parliament support the Gaelic language, it has never been seriously suggested as an offical language of Scotland or to be officially used in parliament. As a side note, I expect that there are probably more Punjabi and Urdu speakers in the UK than there are Gaelic speakers! christopherson78 15:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Establishment

Does anyone know why 1801 has been shown as the date of establishment? Technically the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was established in the 1920s but it can clear trace its roots to the Acts of Union of 1707 and indeed the personal union of England and Scotland in 1606.

"Established 1801" just doesn't do the UK justice: it makes us look younger than some of our former colonies, including the United States! Yorkshire Phoenix 15:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This is something that has been brought up before by users - including myself - who were unfamiliar with the situation. Apparently, the Kingdom of Great Britain that existed from 1707-1801 was never officially called the United Kingdom, and so the addition of Ireland to form the UK of GB and I in 1801 is seen as the beginning of the 'United Kingdom', with the removal of the Irish state in the 1920s as an 'adjustment'.

And as for seeming younger - well it is!! --Robdurbar 15:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a peculiar way of looking at it: "United Kingdom of" is actually part of the country's title (just like "Republic of"), not it's name. The name has been Great Britain ever since 1707 (this is why the ISO identifiers are GB and GBR, not UK). Whether it was officially a "Kingdom" or "United Kingdom" should be neither here nor there. Yorkshire Phoenix 15:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

For the most part, the Act of Union 1707 created the model for the institutions of state as they are today. However, the Act of Union 1800 was not a document of amendment of the Union between England and Scotland, or one inviting Ireland to enter into the same agreement. The Act of Union 1800 makes it clear that the United Kingdom is a wholly new country, formed by the union of two equal predecessors; the Crown, Parliament, established church, armed forces, and so on were different to those that predeced them.

The 1800 Act is unlike the Government of Ireland Act 1920, the Anglo-Irish Treaty 1921, the Irish Free State Constitution Act 1922, the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927, and other relevant documents of the 1920s. All of these make it clear that the country and institutions remain the same, but under different names and jurisdictions. Thus, the analogy to the more recent change is false.

I agree that it is an unfortunate side-effect that, by acknowledging this, it seems that the United Kingdom is younger than would otherwise appear. Colonially, militarily, culturally, it is a mockery of actuality, but, politically and legally, it was actuality.

On the last point, that of its name, you are wrong. 'United Kingdom' has been an integral part of the name, since at least 1801 (some say 1707); 'Great Britain and Northern Ireland' is not the name of any state. By comparison, 'Republic of Ireland' has never been our neighbours' name, but a description (or, at least, so claims the Republic's constitution). The reason that the ISO codes are 'GB' and 'GBR' is stupidity, not deliberate commentary on the subtleties of centuries-old legislation. Bastin 15:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

ISO's reasoning is that "United Kindom" is not country-specific (United Kindom of Denmark-Norway, United Kingdom of Sweden-Norway, United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil, and the Algarve, United Kingdom of the Netherlands, etc) and the union of any two existing kingdom's could compromise its uniqueness, whereas Great Britain is very specific (even though it does exclude Northern Ireland). Suggesting Ireland was an equal partner in 1801 and that the United Kingdom was not a continuation of Great Britain is somewhat misleading, regardless of what the Act says!

I wasn't aware that ISO confided such things, but, if that's what they're saying, it can only be to cover their bureaucrats' lazy, incompotent arses. The reason that this article is titled 'United Kingdom' is that it's not confusing at all. I hardly find it credible that somebody would confuse the British Ambassador with the fellow from Denmark-Norway, think that Portugal, Brazil, and the Algarve had a chance in hell of winning gold at the quadruple sculls, or imagine the TLD '.uk' means that Ancient Israel had made it to the computer age. Even ignoring their extinction, the fact is that, in those cases, 'United Kingdom' was a style, and not the name of the country. In our case, the short name of the country is 'United Kingdom'; it's not just a style.

I recognise that the Kingdom of Ireland, in actuality, was not an equal partner in 1801, or, indeed, at any point until Emancipation (some would say later or never; I wouldn't). However, the union prescribed under the Act of Union does make them equal partners.

Of course, just because the 1801 is undeniably the date on which the modern state was born doesn't mean that other dates can't be added. Germany and Spain each have four dates given, so why the UK can't have more than one (1603, 1707, 1801, 1921, I suggest) is quite beyond me. Bastin 16:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't really bother me, but the fact is that the 1800 act - as you state - notes that it is an entirely new country. I don't see why we couldn't also mention 1921. As for 1603 - plenty of states were in personal unions at various times in Medieval history and, though undoubtdly it made the later Union possible, legally and officially it has no bearing on the formation of the UK. --Robdurbar 17:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The articles on Spain and Saudi Arabia gives their personal unions; Germany, the creation of the Holy Roman Empire; Norway, its exit from personal union with Sweden; most former Commonwealth Realms, their date of becoming republics; Malta, the date of British military withdrawal, etc. Why can't the UK do the same by giving the date on which its component parts first came under the same rule? I'm not suggesting that it be given instead of the actual dates of consolidation, but a secondary note to the date that would explicitly be given as the date of establishment: 1 January 1801. Bastin 22:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well if others do it then I don't see why we shouldnt. WP:BE BOLD and as long as its well written and clear... --Robdurbar 08:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

How could one characterise the 1707 Act? 1603 is clearly a matter of 'Dynastic union' (as per Spain), 1801 is undoubtedly 'Establishment', and 1927 is 'Renaming', but 1707 is harder to describe so succinctly. Until one can be reached, I'm leaving it out (even though it was the trigger to change it in the first place). It may be for the best, because 1707 was probably the least relevant date anyway. If you object to any part of the addition, feel free to revert and discuss. Bastin 10:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The current infobox is a vast improvement: but lists a different set of events to the {{UKFormation}} template (to the right of this paragraph).

Do you think we could come up with a consistent list of establishment events for the UK for the infobox and the template?

Well we could leave out Rhuddlan and Wales from the article as these incorporated Wales into the Kingdom of England, and didn't really have much affect on creating the United Kingdom (the template is more detailed, I guess). The difference in the act of union date is that it was an 1800 act that came into affect in 1801 - semantics, really, but we can change the template there.

Though 1927 was the 'renaming', I think its fair to say that the important event was Ireland leaving and I'll change the article date to 1921, for the Anglo-Irish treaty, but add the renaming to the template. Robdurbar 21:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The 'new form' of the United Kingdom wasn't really redefined by Parliament until 1927. Only under the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act did Parliament ultimately recognise the change in its territorial jurisdiction; Section 2 redefines the meaning of 'United Kingdom', which is as close as one can get under the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. The 1927 Act also marked the change in both parliamentary and sovereign styles. Bastin 13:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well its up to you; I agree wity Yorkshire that we should use the same in both and if your familiar with this subejct then thats fine. --Robdurbar 19:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the significance of the date of 12 April 1922 (I would have thought 6 December 1921 or 6 December 1922 appropriate). Notwithstanding that, I'd still rather go with 1927 than 1921/2. Whilst 1921/2 was obviously more important to the Republic of Ireland's historical formation, 1927 is (IMO) more important to the United Kingdom's current status. Furthermore, 1927 is of importance as the culmination of the events that preceded it, both in terms of the Irish Free State and the relationship with the Commonwealth. Territorially, of course, the date of the final expansion should be given as 1955 (annexation of Rockall)!

Assuming that I have understood the proper use of the template, I personally won't think that the lists of events need to be the same. The template must include every event mentioned in the infobox, but not vice versa. At the moment, I think that the template is roughly complete and perfectly adequate for the task that it's supposed to perform, whereas the infobox is probably not. Bastin 10:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Could we not simply add another 'Establishment' below the 'Dynastic union' linking to the Acts of Union 1707 as this is was the first time that the United Kingdom was created.--Barry^talk 19:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Data

The article states that : "Thousands are separated (formal) by a comma: 10,000. (To avoid confusion with continental countries which use the comma as the decimal separator, a space may be used, e.g. 10 000.) ". We were always taught in highschool that it was now non-standard to use the comma separator for thousands and that the space, or even no marker at all was the correct format. Comments? Mike 09:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Commas are still in widespread use, especially with numbers over 9,999. The English (UK) locale setting in Microsoft Windows includes the comma separator, meaning the vast majority of computer-generated documentation in the UK will use it. Yorkshire Phoenix 09:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just finished A-levels and we were taught to use the comma. DJR (T) 13:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There are two meanings of standard, and both meanings are limited to a certain set or subset. One meaning of it is the norm, the thing most commonly used. The other meaning is the thing that is formally agreed on by some body as the way to go, even if most people who ought to be obeying that standard aren't doing it. (Comparison: the legal standard may be to drive at a certain speed on one road, while the standard in terms of the norm of reality may be that everyone drives faster.) Either way, because of how countries in which English is the biggest native language are, the question of 'standard', except in terms of the norm for actual use, is always really limited to some subset (a school curriculum, a publishing house's style guide, a government office's writing guidelines, &c.) not the nation as a whole. — President Lethe 13:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

archive/moving debates

for the sake of this discussion page, especially people who want to discuss matters unrelated to the first line of the article, I have undertaken a major sub-page/archiving of this page into three separate subsections all linking from Talk:United Kingdom/Terminology. I apologise for any inconvenience caused, but I honestly do not believe it to be fair that this one topic dominates this page in such a way. Furthermore, the length of the page(s) are now much shorter, making it easier to get to the latest changes.

Cheers, DJR (T) 14:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna move current discussions back to here - I'm not accusing you of anything, but in the past subpages have been operated for certain areas of discussion on this page and users have been accused of attempting to hide talk, in order to ensure that only their own voices were heard. Like I said, I'm sure that's not your intention, but all the same I think we should avoid such a situation again. --Robdurbar 18:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Though I'd would suggest that all of the above be archived as soon as some sort of resolution is reached. DJR (T) 18:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Help disambiguating

Hello everyone, there is a current need to help disambiguate the term British. At Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, British is the disambiguation pages with the most links (by far), and ideally there should be no links to disambiguation pages. So if possible, please take a look at the links, and try to disambiguate the links to a more correct location. It's actually pretty easy, and most get disambiguated to United Kingdom. If we could get 10 or so people doing 50 links a day, we'll be done in no time. Thanks in advance , -- Jeff3000 03:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

fifth largest GDP?

There is no reference for this claim, and I have heard others. Actually, here are three:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29 (6th) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29 (5th) https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html (8th)

There need to at least be one credible reference listed, but even better would be to list both nominal and PPP from two sources.

The media in the UK commonly use the phrase "the worlds's fourth largest economy", which when you inspect it and attempt to get figures turns out to be a puff of hot air - seems like it's probably about tenth or something. I believe this quote first arose from Alistair Campbell, spin doctor for Tony Blair and has been endlessly repeatef like a mantra by New Labour politicians ever since, and our baying mindless kneejerk pathetic "journalists" in London have brainlessly accepted it without checking. The "fifth" thing is just a slight adjustment on "fourth" - I think NL are scared of being found out on the fourth thing as even the laziest journalists on the planet sometimes check a factoid. Jeez, even Belgium probably produces more goods than Britain now. The last sentence is a joke by the way. MarkThomas 17:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any source that puts the UK tenth (by the way, it's not just goods that count towards GDP - services do too). As for the World Factbook reference above, it lists the UK as 8th, but the world and the EU are 1st and 3rd, and they don't count as countries, so the UK is the 6th placed country by that source. I think we should stick to nominal measures though, since that measures the actual size of the economy. Cordless Larry 18:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

A quick look at the 'official exchange rate' GDP figures from the fact book make this easy to explain. Both India and China, who rate higher than the UK in PPP, are lower in official exchange rate, promoting the UK to fourth. So it's more than just 'hot air', but the PPP figure probably better reflects the truth. DJ Clayworth 19:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the extremely strange - and often non-sensical - world of economics. The problem basically boils down to the fact that it is extremely difficult to compare such statistics between nations. Not only are there many different 'versons' of GDP (nominal & PPP being the most famous), but each country has a different relationship between the public and private sectors, this combined with each countries unique strucuture of public/private debts, foreign ownership and public/private equity structure make any ranking purely "an estimate based purely on criteria X, Y & Z" rather than a 'true' GDP ranking. Canderra 02:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect the reference to fifth may come from the World Bank's figures, which can be found here: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTICS/0,,contentMDK:20399244~menuPK:1192694~pagePK:64133150~piPK:64133175~theSitePK:239419,00.html Hobson 23:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we clarify by listing at least two measurements, with sources. Mojo-chan 13:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think a better thing would be to remove the comparative GDP rankings from all country articles as they are all misleading and based on quite arbitrary factors, not to mention the various absurdities like debt, war and natural disasters increasing a nation's GDP etc., HDI is far more useful (although no "ranking" can be perfect). But this issue needs to be debated at a far higher level than just this article. Canderra 16:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Literature section

I propose that the large and randomly expanding list of names in this section should be deleted. The appropriate information can be found via the above links. Viewfinder 16:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Cordless Larry 17:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm also unsure why the removal of Irish writers from this list keeps being reverted. Cordless Larry 08:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Well, I guess to me that's the whole point - the UK is wider than just England and Englishness. I know obviously that it does not incorporate Ireland or Irishness, but on the other hand, I think the boundaries can be blurred in cultural matters and that very many people would associate Oscar Wilde with Englishness - one only has to think of Lady Bracknell and handbags to have a picture of quintissential Englishness. Swift is perhaps less certain, but I think if you were to ask what country Robinson Crusoe came from most people would say "England" and of course Swift was part of the British Tory govt and in his time Ireland was part of the British Empire for good or ill. So I think you are taking rather a hair-splitting approach to it if you don't mind me saying so. The UK is home to many many international writers and many "English" writers have elements of foreign backgrounds. I am inclined to be relaxed about it. MarkThomas 09:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the words "from the United Kingdom" need to be changed in that case. To me, that suggests born in the UK, whereas I accept that you can be associated with Britain or be British, while still being born elsewhere. Cordless Larry 09:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It's surely nothing to do with "Englishness" - this is the UK, not England, article; and Wilde was just as much a UK author as was Dickens. I don't believe Ireland was ever "part of the British Empire" - it was part of Britain itself.

Having said all that, the proposal to remove the list (and all such similar lists) altogether makes very good sense. They are always subjective (which the encyclopaedia should strive not to be) and rarely helpful to readers (which it should). Mucky Duck 10:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have deleted the list. I hope I have done so correctly but correct it if I have not. Unfortunately I am not adequately qualified to make further edits to the literature sections, but I suggest that much of the relevant information is best found in the articles about the constituent countries and does not need to be duplicated in UK articles, although there are those with background from more than one "home" country, who may be hard to categorise. Viewfinder 20:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This as a strange view; as a user of WP I find such lists incredibly useful and I'm sad to see them go. I realise UK is duplicative of England and so forth but exactly because of the confusions around which page to go to, I think the UK page should cover this ground if only briefly; and it's one of the strongest parts of our cultural heritage. MarkThomas 21:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually this is just a mess now - we have big lists of Brit pop stars but not famous authors! What! MarkThomas 21:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

While I agreed with removing the list, I think we need to replace it with something (preferably prose rather than another list). I've had a look at other country articles and there doesn't seem to be a constistent format for this. The Italy article might provide a good model though. Cordless Larry 21:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the list again, because the list reinstated by Mark Thomas was almost as long and random as the one I first deleted. I have also moved the comment by Mark Thomas to reflect the fact that it was posted after the move,and themove was made after earlier input from Mark Thomas, which dealt with the Irish inclusion question, not the main point. If further discussion shows up significant support for Mark Thomas's position then so be it, but Mark, please do not reinstate the list before allowing time for further comment. You are in the habit of making controversial edits without talk page discussion, see George Galloway. Perhaps the list of pop stars should be purged also. Viewfinder 22:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the list. I was going to suggest adding sections on "famous english authors, and famous english musicians etc, but then I realised - that's exactly the reason we have categories. --Crimsone 00:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I replaced it and attempted a good revised edit in good faith after considerable discussion. The difficulty now seems to be that we have big lists of trivial pop stars and nothing at all on the greatest set of famous writers in the world. All very odd. List replaced until someone other than Viewfinder comes up with a good reason for deleting it but leaving Britpop trash in place. MarkThomas 08:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

While you are entitled to your say, yours is the only voice in support of the list here. Therefore I have deleted it again. Please do not reinstate it again unless or until at least as many contributors to this section agree with you. Also, please stop queue barging your edits. This is not your personal enyclopedia. The fact that there may be other random lists around that need deleting is not a case for the reinstatement. There may be a case for reviewing the categories. Viewfinder 14:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If any queue-barging happened (whatever that is) it was purely accidental, since I have no idea how to do it. You portray the list as some sort of random act, but I checked back and it accumulates many, many careful thoughts by numerous editors over who should and should not be included in the list of leading UK authors; the list is a good one and I can't understand why you want to delete this and not the other lists on the page which are of equal or lesser validity. From your comments it appears you may have some sort of grudge against me personally arising from edits on the George Galloway page, and you shouldn't be letting this interfere with a very reasonable list on the UK page. I suggest others take a look at this; the current situation is very unsatisfactory. You are not just undoing my work, but the outstanding work of dozens of editors over many months on what is actually an excellent and informative page. MarkThomas 16:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

For some reason English authors are being singled out for removal; as far as I can tell from the discussion, this appears to be because Viewpoint does not like MarkThomas. So let's have the list back for now. It could be shorter or longer but it's a great list! Why have all the music but not the writers who make Britain great? Is this anti-Brit prejudiced or something, as a US citizen living in the UK I notice this a lot. Sarah Williams 16:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah, my key point is that if the authors list goes, the other long lists of scientists, musicians, etc, should go, but really it's a good page with all the lists, kind of a quick ref for people who don't know much about the UK. Nice of you as a foreigner to stick up for us. MarkThomas 17:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I discussed my proposed edits on this page and deleted with the support of the majority of contributors. I do not have the time to continue this edit war. The issue is not that important. But I note that Sarah Williams has been supporting Mark Thomas on the George Galloway page - where Mark Thomas has been serially breaching WP:BLP, WP:3RR, WP:NPA - so her independence from Mark Thomas is in doubt, and there is still a majority against the list on this page - which is why I have been deleting it, not for personal reasons, Sarah, although I admit that I have been been influenced by the fact that Mark Thomas has been persistently reverting other editors who doesn't agree with his POVs, regardless of where or not his view is the majority view in discussions. He then accuses others of being Stalinist and SWP (see Talk:George Galloway). Viewfinder 17:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

For those with a passing interest in Galloway, I have simply been trying to add to the page the very widely known fact that Galloway praised Saddam in public, something a cabal of editors on that page object to. Many of these editors routinely edit extreme-left party pages, etc, in a positive light, and when I try to objectify the Galloway page, they attack me as POV. It's all terribly co-ordinated and a huge abuse of Wikipedia, but I don't join in their attacks or innapropriate labelling, just try to get the job done. None of which has the slightest bearing on lists of authors on the UK page. I note that you are now slandering another user. Poor her. I hope someone else takes a look at this page and concludes, as I have, that it's a really dumb thing to do to remove the best of Brirish literature from the page and leave all the other lists in place. MarkThomas 18:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Sarah Williams: this has nothing to do with being anti-British. I'm British myself and I support the removal of the list. It's about a list of names not being suitable for an encyclopedia article. What we need is a paragraph with the key names in British literature in some kind of context.

MarkThomas: you say that if the literature list goes, the music section has to go too, but the point is that the music section is well-written whereas the literature section is just a list. I support having a section detailing important literary figures but it needs to be well-written. Cordless Larry 18:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem with that Cordless Larry, and in fact that's what I was trying to do, when Viewfinder came along and just walloped the whole list. Actually this discussion started because of modifications to the list removing the writers born in Ireland - which is a worthy point - and then moved on to editing of the whole list to make it less listlike. I didn't like the idea of removing the Irish writers who are also celebrated as British, but am very willing to hear different arguments on that. I then went in and tried (along with your good self) to make it less listy and more "worldwide" in nature, both to compensate for the Irish perspective and also to make it more fit for the United Kingdom context as opposed to England. Perhaps we can all now return to doing that! Most editors are very busy so it can only be done incrementally. Sorry if I've annoyed you a lot Viewpoint but perhaps you will let us pursue that in the meantime without removing it? MarkThomas 20:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Who is Viewpoint? Is it me, if so please also apologise for getting my user name wrong, as deliberate user name and other name errors are frequently used to make thinly disgused personal attacks. I walloped the list because it was near enough a reproduction of the old one. I did nothing to stop you creating a professional summary article with or without a few examples. Viewfinder 20:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It was a fatigued mistake Viewfinder, my apologies. MarkThomas 21:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, the debate over whether the list is there or not is a side-issue. The most important thing is that we develop something good to replace it. If we spent more time on that and less on reverting each other's edits, we might have gotten past a list by now. Cordless Larry 20:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Cordless Larry - in line with that, I've put some effort into creating a proper section as published. Happy to have adjustments (it may be too long now - so difficult to suppress enthusiasm about such a big subject and a land full of famous writers!) but please let's get this good and not simply delete through intertia. Tricky issues include relevant Scottish and Welsh writers and how to introduce the many Irish and other national writers who lived and worked in the UK and are sometimes celebrated as "British" or "of these isles". Thanks. MarkThomas 18:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I see your version in preference to what was there before. Viewfinder 18:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

English Lesson: 'informal' does not address the issue of 'accuracy'

This contrived attempt, of extremely recent vintage, to say that Britain is now merely an "informal" name for the UK does not address in any way, shape or form the issue of precision, of accuracy. The proposers of the motion know it, which of course is why they want to create such a chimera away from the accuracy issue. Equating Britain with the UK is just as wrong in 2006 as it was in 1801, and it was so wrong even in the heart of the British establishment in 1801 that they renamed the British state from Great Britain to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The conjunction 'and' is, obviously, the key word there. Re-read. And re-read again. And again. Comprenez-vous? An dtuigeann sibh? If wikipedia wants to stand over such an inaccuracy, then it abnegates any right to term itself an encyclopedia on this issue. South Armagh is not in Britain, and it never has been. Have you people been asleep for the past few decades? And it doesn't really matter (in fact, it matters not a whit) if all 58.5 million people over in Britain jumped on screaming that a part of Ireland is in Britain- their nationalism will not change geography. When it comes to writing an encyclopedia, accuracy is everything. The entire wikipedia project is discredited by the triumph of British supranationalism over accuracy on this United Kingdom article. El Gringo 20:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The consensus, for a second time, was for the opposing view. We've already had this debate twice now, let's move on. Gsd2000 21:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

UK location map

A few days ago I modified the infobox including a new map. The older one has recently been replaced because it is considered coherent with the rest of the nations' wiki pages. That's true, but see for example the french pages about Italy or France. Don't you think that the new map is graphically better? It could be used for all EU countries pages. Let me know what you think about it. --Kloud88 14:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

For my two cents, I must say that if the map was implemented as a standard across Europe-articles, I would support it over the old ones. It is a more informative image as a whole. DJR (T) 17:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Worth Mentioning Firearms?

Would it be extraneous to add in a bit about firearms or the lack thereof? It does seem to be common knowledge that they are not around unless for sport, but it might be worth mentioning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.138.80.20 (talk) .

no it wouldn't, guns arent really a part of our culture here in the UK so we shouldn't really talk about them, maybe in a separate article firearms in the united kingdom or something like that --The big moose 16:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't help feeling that "It does seem to be common knowledge that they are not around unless for sport" is something that is so normal in the vast majority of the world that it would be worth mention if it was not the case . It is normal to not allow guns, and the USA allows them is probably the biggest anomaly in the developed world. DJR (T) 17:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

exactly.. the article on policing in the uk does say that the police aren't generally armed, which is enough I think --The big moose 17:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed also. DJ Clayworth 13:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a link to here? Gun politics in the United Kingdom? The USA is not an anomaly, many nations allow more access to firearms then the UK.Halbared 08:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Military Spending

The CIA factbook 2006 states that UK military expenditure in 2005 totalled $42,836,500,000 (estimated). This ranks the UK as 5th in the World behind the US, China, France and Japan on total military spending (not a % of GDP, where the UK is ranked as 61st in the World). It therefore appears that the Wiki statement that the UK is 2nd in the World is incorrect. Additionally, a citation is required regarding the second in the world for "global power projection capabilities" statement, whatever that means.

I too am certain that this figure is incorrect. The UK is not the second largest spender on defence by any measure, although it is a major military power. It should be corrected and sourced.

the figure is correct ive seen to many CIA world factbook reports that are totally incorrect, for example placing the US GDP above the EU which just doesnt add up. whereas wikipedias sources are from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Figures which are more highly researched. it also makes sence, due to the fact the CIA put japan as fourth and the UK 5th, as the japanese are finding it hard to find replacement aircraft and buy new helicopters on their defence budget, as its in the japanese constitution that japan cannot go to war, while britain is buying over 200 eurofighters 200 jsf's 2 new aircraft carriers, 4 new amphibious warfare landing ships, 6 new destroyers 7 new submarines, equiping the whole army with night sights and infared lasers, grenade launchers, a whole new comunications system, about 70 apaches, thousands of new panther cars, mastiff and vector apc's, and preparing programes to replace tornado bombers seaking, puma and lynx helicopters.

Title is wrong

While it may be shorter to put the title of this article as United Kingdom, this is not and has never been the name of the country, and is certainly not a name used regularly by British people to refer to thier country. The country is called The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so this should surely be the title of the article. United Kingdom and UK are no more accurate and formal ways of shortening the name than Britain is. Alihaig 12:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I can CATEGORICALLY state that everyone ALWAYS uses "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" rather than just "United Kingdom". It's just so much more convenient. Badgerpatrol 13:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Alihaig. We've had lots of arguments over common usages within the body of the article. But the title itself should be full and precise, with the current title used as a redirect. If people object to the full term being in the title, then please explain, because the rest of us are just mystified by the fist pounding that goes on here.--Shtove 13:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the th displayed title be changed to the full name, but the actual page on wiki remain as United Kingdom if at all possible. That's naturally where people will be looking for it. --Crimsone 13:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes- to clarify my previous comment, the sarcasm was aimed at the ridiculous notion that "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is preferred in everyday common parlance. As for the name of the article- he's quite right. Rename and redirect- I imagine it ended up here perhaps in order to appease political sensibilities? Badgerpatrol 13:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Understood. Not sure what Crimsone is suggesting. With united kingdom as a redirect, users can type in that phrase and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland page will appear. As it stands, the reverse is in operation (type UKGBNI and you go to UK).--Shtove 13:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I temporarily lost my mind there. You are quite correct. --Crimsone 13:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify what I meant, people don't always use the full name, but it is more common to refer to "Britain" or the individual name of each nation - England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland - instead of using United Kingdom, depending on the issue being disscussed. Alihaig 12:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

In such instances, they aren't referring to the UK. They are referring to individual nations within the UK. In any other context, they would be incorrect in doing so.--Crimsone 12:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

From WP:NAME :

• 'Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.'

I think this applies here quite well. --Robdurbar 13:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is different to other short names such as Britain. It is the formal short form of the country. It is regularly used in legistation to refer to the country.[2] --josh (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is true also. I think that in light of Robdurbars quote of WP:NAME, it's probably best left as it is - it doesn't actually result in an 'untruth' - it's merely the conventional and correct abbreviation of the term. --Crimsone 14:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What's "most easily" recognized is the full title. And the redirect from United Kingdom is no problem. And as for Britain being used to include Norn Iron, go tell it to the folks at Talk:British Isles. I don't want people running around in a circle and waving their clubs over this point - but putting the full title of UKGBNI at the head of this article, with the appropriate redirect for UK, is beyond argument. Anything less would let sloppy ideology trump plain precision.--Shtove 22:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The title should be the actual correct name of the country, not the shortened or colloquial form.Halbared 09:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not a colloquial form. It is established as a legally exact and identical term under the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927. Since it was that same piece of legislation that conferred the title of 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland', it's somewhat disingenuous to claim that one is official whilst the other isn't. Bastin 09:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware of that act. I looked at the page, Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927. And it say's, 'The Act had two consequences. The first was to change the full name of the United Kingdom (UK) to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the former United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.'

It still makes me think the shortened form is a colloquial or incorrect title.Halbared 13:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Section 2(1) restyled Parliament as 'Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. Section 2(2) states that 'the expression "United Kingdom" shall, unless the context otherwise requires, mean Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. Bastin 14:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that. I don't like it, but as it's official I shall not pursue the matter.:o)Halbared 15:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. And shortened forms are perfectly acceptable: see United Mexican States --Robdurbar 09:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I just think shortened forms should be in the into, but I don't see it as encyclopaedic to have them as the correct title on the pageHalbared 13:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That statutory citation doesn't cut it - it's just a short form for the purposes of that particular piece of legislation, to save on repetition of the full form, and has no bearing on the proper title of the state.--Shtove 15:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Short forms are neither incorrect nor colloquial. United Kingdom is the completely correct and adequate short form of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the same way that France is the short form of French Republic, that Mexico is the short form of United Mexican States, that Russia is the short form of Russian Federation, that Denmark is the short form of Kingdom of Denmark, and so on and so forth. Both forms are completely correct. john k 19:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but only if the short form you're using is Great Britain and Northern Ireland - not UK.--Shtove 07:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you also going to propose moving United States to America? Leave this page where it is, it's been happy here for years. Morwen - Talk 07:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not how it works. "United Kingdom" is the official short form in exactly the same way the others are. That it refers to the form of government rather than the geographical location is neither here nor there. There's a specific reason for this - "Great Britain and Ireland" and "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" aren't terribly short. (Just as there's a reason that "United States" is the short form of the USA - that "America" is ambiguous and offensive to other people in the Americas). john k 10:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Odd-looking map

Is it just my eyes, or has the map of the UK in the "Geography" section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Uk-map.svg) been accidentally stretched? I think it's too high compared to its width, or too narrow compared to its height, whichever way you want to look at it. Someone should do a rough measurement to check... Matt 23:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC).

Further to the above, I measured "distance from Land's End to John o' Groats" divided by "distance from Land's End to Margate" and found:

Map at Geography of the United Kingdom: ratio 1.87
Map in my atlas: ratio 1.85
Map in this article: ratio 2.02

Admittedly the ratio will depend slightly on the map projection used, but these figures bear out what my eyes are telling me. Matt 00:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC).

Looks nice and slim. But is it a map of the UK, or of Britain?--Shtove 01:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point - merits further discussion, I reckon. :-) Badgerpatrol 01:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a map of the UK. The regions constititing the UK are shaded in the lighter colour. In particular, the light-shaded area includes Northern Ireland - which is part of the UK but not a part of (Great) Britain. It also excludes the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, which are not part of the UK. Matt 10:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC).

Map of the UK which is size accurate?

Would it be possible to get a map of the uk which is in proportion to the rest of the world or europe at least? Am I being a moron? I thought the UK was about half the size of Spain. France is even bigger than Spain, so why is it that many maps which claim to be physiucally accurate - and even some satililite photos - show the uk to be about the size of Spain and France put together? Alex, 07/10/06 16.44

Which map are you talking about? I've personally never seen a map that has the UK the size of France and Spain together, unless it's one drawn by a six year old. Perhaps you are referring to the problem of projecting something that exists in three dimensions (the surface of the globe) in two? See here: Map projection. Gsd2000 16:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Edinburgh as 6th largest financial centre in Europe

The economy section lists Edinburgh as no 6 financial centre in Europe. It cites reference 55, which is an article quote from a debate in the Scottish Parliament, from which I quote:

What is even more remarkable is that Scotland no longer has the sixth position in Europe as a banking centre. A few months ago SFE updated its survey. It found that Scotland is not sixth, fifth, fourth, or even third, but is now the second most important banking centre in the whole of Europe, behind only London in its European and international importance. Indeed the chief executive of SFE tells me that when his survey reached that conclusion, he was so surprised he thought he had better check his figures, so he collected the figures afresh from another source and ran the calculation again, achieving the same result, confirming that Scotland was indeed the second centre in Europe

I think it's very unlikely anyway that Edinburgh ranks sixth, although I also think the above is exagerrated - Frankfurt is surely second. London is first. Zurich third - I would guess Edinburgh is fourth. Permission to correct my fellow editors? :-) MarkThomas 08:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless we can come up with a better source, it should stay or be deleted? You may be well right about fourth ness but unless you have a source for that it shouldn't be going in. Morwen - Talk 08:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined that we delete it as the source is not a guide to the statement, but am currently seeking a more accurate source on financial centre rankings than a rant from an MSP. :-) Mark. MarkThomas 08:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. It's not a terribly well defined concept anyway - how do you measure? funds under management? turnover? number of people employed?. and "banking centre" doesn't equate to "financial centre": there's no big Edinburgh Stock Exchange. Morwen - Talk 09:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Modified it slightly, please review. Thanks. MarkThomas 11:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

840 years?

The present United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the latest of several unions formed over the last 840 years.

What on earth does this figure refer to? I can think of no event in 1166 that even remotely comes close to suggesting a political union. The Assize of Clarendon in that year guaranteed trial by jury in England, but that's the only major historical event that is worthy of note.

If we're looking for the earliest event that prefigured a unified administration in Britain, I would suggest the Battle of Brunanburh in 937, in which Athelstan, King of England, defeated and received the submission and fealty of the kings of Scotland, Strathclyde, and Dublin - allowing him to adopt the title King of All Britain. TharkunColl 13:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I assume that it refers rather sloppily to the Lordship of Ireland (which was, of course, created 835 years ago).

Brunanburh, and the submission at Bamburgh, belonged to the previous generation of consolidation. The title of 'Queen of the United Kingdom' does not stem from the title of 'King of All Britain', which Athelstan held, but is derived from that of 'Lord of Ireland'. Bastin 14:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I noticed this before and have been meaning to raise it. It's really nonsense I think. The Lordship has nothing much to do with the concept of "United Kingdom" which essentially of course dates from James Stewart and is therefore really a modern phenomenon. I would be sceptical of any claim to a medieval parallel such as the empire of Edward I or an early medieval Bretwalda like Aethelstan. I would suggest we reword it as something like The present United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has origins in the Act of Union of 1707 and then developed into its modern form in the early 20th century with the Government of Ireland Act 1920. MarkThomas 16:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

First mention of political party

Very early in the text: "The attitude of the present government towards further integration with this organisation is mixed [9], with the Conservative Party favouring a return of some powers and competencies to the state [10]. " Does this need an edit? No mention to that point who the current government is and no mention that the Conservative Party is the current opposition.Rogerrab 21:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we probably ought to mention both. --Robdurbar 08:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you look in the government and politics seciton, it discusses the various political parties in some detail. --Robdurbar 09:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Three official languages

I've just received a new passport and on the title page 'European Union', 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' and 'Passport' are listed in English, Welsh and a third language, indicating that all three are official languages. This third language, however, is not an exact match for any of the British languages currently given in the infobox. The full name of the UK in this third official language is Rìoghachd Aonaichte Bhreatainn is Éireann a Tuath. Can anyone identify this language? Incidently: European Union is translated as Aonadh Eòrpach and passport is caed-siubhail. Yorkshire Phoenix 01:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Is gaelic not an offical language? User:yerkschmerk

That's definitely Gaelic - of the scottish variety I believe. Crimsone 19:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily mean that all are official languages. My passport has Spanish and French on it too. DJ Clayworth 19:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Spanish and French are official EU languages, but with the expansion of the EU the languages have been slimmed down to the official languages of the state in question. Yorkshire Phoenix 23:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

That's rubbish. The European Union has TWENTY official languages, not three. Whilst the United Kingdom itself has no legal definition of an official language, the European Union does, and the European Commission has ruled that English is the sole official language of the UK.[3] This has already been established in previous discussions (see 'Welsh'). Bastin 02:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the UK Passport Agency has ruled that the UK has three official languages: and they have far more right to decide than any European Commission! Yorkshire Phoenix 09:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

First, the UKPA has not ruled that; it has decided to use four languages (French) on one of its documents. You've never explained how the use of a language on a passport makes it an official language, particularly when I can 'prove' the opposite by giving the number of languages on the other official documents in my possession (1).

Second, the European Commission is one half of the legislative branch of the European Union, the law of which has primacy over British law; a ruling by the EC has more weight than an Act of Parliament, so they have quite a lot of scope to decide that sort of thing, particularly in cases when Parliament refuses to do so.

Third, the UKPA's job is not to dictate language policy. After all, it's a passport agency; they just make pretty purple books that are useful at getting through immigration. Bastin 09:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sadly I have to agree with your second point. Despite the lack of any form of visible democracy the corrupt French/German pigs are successfully crippling this great country and removing its last peices of soverignty in preparation for the creation of their superstate. (alihaig) 130.246.132.26 15:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Welsh is clearly an official language of the United Kingdom, as is whatever language it is they use on roadsigns in the Highlands and Islands and the other one on the passport. Yorkshire Phoenix 11:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, so my passport says 'Ison-Britannian ja Pohjois-Irlannin yhdistynyt kuningaskunta' on its first page. I suppose that makes (Swedish?) an official language of the UK. The passport thing has been discussed above - see Bastin's point above. --Robdurbar 11:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That;s Finnish. -- Arwel (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

What languages appear in a passport have nothing to do with official languages, EU or otherwise, but international conventions. Pretty much every country's passport, worldwide, will have the details in, at a minimum, English, French, and the local language. Ever seen an Israeli or Japanese passport? Not many immigration officers around the world can read Hebrew or Japanese, so the details are printed in the Latin alphabet. -- Arwel (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Förenade konungariket Storbritannien och Nordirland, is swedish for United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It could be Scottish, Scotts Gaelic, Irish or Cornish. London UK (talk) 11:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that the view on offical languages of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has been discussed in detail already. The European Union and the UK Parliament recognise English as the only offical language of the UK, whilst Scots Gaelic, Irish Gaelic and Welsh are minority languages. However, Welsh does have offical language status with Wales itself and various government servies can be accessed in Welsh throughout the UK. christopherson78 11:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Welsh has official status in the UK within Wales, and Scottish Gaelic is an official language of the Scottish parliament, though not of the UK. English is the de facto language of the United Kingdom, and just because some other countries started stating that languages were official in their written constitution does not mean the UK has to do likewise to render "official language" meaningful in a UK context (such a way of thinking is of course childish for a great number of reasons). Hey, I myself just received the new passport. All this passport thing necessarily means is that the passport agency decided to do use English, Welsh and Scottish, but not Irish Gaelic. There are 4 languages spoken natively in the United Kingdom, and Irish Gaelic is the only one missing. I'd like to hear an explanation for that ... it might illuminate the passport agency's decision. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No. There are 5 living (ie. not resurrected) languages. As usual the largest (by a long, long margin - at over 1.5 million speakers) linguistic minority is ignored: Scots.

Calgacus is weel kent for disputing the status of Scots as a distinct language rather than a dialect of English, because it descends from the Northumbrian variant of Middle English. However, if that logic is pursued then Scottish Gaelic is itself only a dialect of Irish Gaelic, because it descends from Middle Irish (and Norwegian is only a dialect of Danish, etc, etc, etc). So, the number of "languages spoken natively" is either 3 or 5, but cannot be 4.

I totally agree that the ommission of Irish is extremely odd: it, and its antecendants, have been spoken in what is now the UK for much longer than English, which only arrived in the 5th century. However, that is a question for the UK Passport Agency. Very interesting, and revealing, though. --Mais oui! 18:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Norwegian does not descend from Danish. Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Icelandic and Faeroese descend from Old Norse. Swedish and Danish descend from Old East Norse while the rest descend from Old West Norse. Norn was a West Norse language spoken in Shetland, Orkney and Caithness. As it is extinct it won't have to go on the UK passport :) Inge 10:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Mais Ouis! You and a few other Scottish users are well kent for Scots-pushing. Unfortunately, 1.5 million is totally unreliable figure because it is based on asking people if they know Scots, and as most people consider it a dialect of English, what that figure is essentially telling you is that 1.5 million people consider themselves able to occassionally talk in or understand to some extent spoken archaic or rural Scottish English. Doubtless many millions would say they understand Cockney or Ebonics. Seriously though, if one incorporates dialects of English spoken in Britain and N. Ireland under the term "English" (as most do), then there are only 4 languages in the UK. The question I was asking, is why Irish was left out ... as Irish has greater regional and international prestige than its Scottish cousin, this seems surprising. I'm wondering if some "official" considerations were used in coming to this decision. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Whether linguists would categorise it as a language or a dialect, or whether the survey respondents recognised the difference, is somewhat tangential. The European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages states that any regional or minority languages must be 'different from the official language(s) of the state'. Since the UK has ratified this with respect to Scots, it must be that the British government's position is that Scots is a separate language. It also ties in well with the original question, since the UK has also ratified it with respect to Welsh, Scottish Gaelic, and Irish Gaelic (amongst others), thus undermining any argument that they have official status.

I can't really answer the Irish Gaelic question. It may be a matter of pragmatically chosing the three most important languages (excluding Scots for a minute), a matter of recognising that most native Irish Gaelic-speakers in the UK don't want to be British anyway (and many will choose to take RoI nationality), or any one of a number of other possibilities. Bastin 15:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a interesting point you make about the ratification of the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages. The only point I'd make is that it would be misleading to think of the UK government being one entity and having any consistent position, and wrong to suppose that the UK has to formulate an official constitutional relationship of languages just because a few other countries have. English (and Norman French) is the official language of the UK (whether or not some written consitution - which the UK doesn't have anyway - says so explicitly). After English, language status varies; suffice it to say, Welsh (official state language in regard to Wales) has higher status than Scottish Gaelic (official language of the Scottish parliament) and Scottish Gaelic has a higher status than Lowland Scots (merely a EU Regional/Minority language), and Lowland Scots has a higher status than Merseyside English (no official status). These individual statuses are the product of individual decisions, not the product of the UK government of any particular era trying to systematize language status. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism

"by playing a leading role in developing Western ideas of property, capitalism, and parliamentary democracy"

I thought the Dutch were the first true capitalists?? Or am I wrong? Superdude99 21:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think its probably unrealistic to state that any nation or national economy are 'true capitalists' - there isn't a set definition or moment of capitalism. The transition from a feudal system was a very gradual one. It is true that it had its genesis in Western Europe and that Netherlands/UK were two countries that were at the front of this; hence 'by playing a leading role'. --Robdurbar 15:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Italian bankers from the Renaissance, surely?--Shtove 18:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought the existence of Adam Smith and the Industrial Revolution was sufficient to justify this sentence. DJ Clayworth 18:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The present United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the latest of several unions formed over the last 300 years.

This is very misleading. In the last 300 years (i.e. since 1706) only two unions, not "several", have been formed - in 1707 and 1801 (the loss of most of Ireland in 1922 can hardly be described as a "union"). All the other unions that could be referenced, such as the Union of the Crowns in 1603 or the parliamentary unions between England, Scotland, and Ireland in the 1650s under Cromwell, fall outside of the specified time period. Just what, exactly, do we want to say here? TharkunColl 12:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect map should be reverted

I've just noticed the map in the side box, showing the position of the UK within the European Union, and the member states of the European Union within geogreaphical Europe. I'd like someone to give a cogent reason (without presenting a POV on whether or not the EU should become a state in it's own right) why this map should be used.

Unless we use a map of the UK within geographic Europe or the world, with only the UK identified, we are presenting a POV on the politics of European union. The EU is not a state, just a regional grouping. The map used gives the EU an importance it does not possess and subtly also implies that the UK might be a subsidiary unit of that grouping, which is misleading for readers not versed in European politics. On their pages in Wikipedia we don't show Malaysia within ASEAN, or Brazil within Mercosur. We don't identify the EU members on the Croatia page. Clearly someone has deliberately gone through the pages of all states which are EU members and replaced their maps with those identifying their position within the EU; we might think they have simply done so to give a commonality of maps, but that does not justify what is a mispreresentation.

The map should be reverted to a standard common across all Wikipedia nation state pages. The maps used on the England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland pages should be the guides. JamesAVD 17:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No strong views on the best map to use, but I think it should be pointed out that the suggestion that the home nation pages should be used as guides as to what should apply on a nation state page is flawed. None of these are nation states. Mucky Duck 09:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ditto really. Although I see JamesAVD's point, it should also be noted that - rightly or wrongly - the European Union IS more than just a regional bloc. Most political scientists would now describe it as a sui generis institution, and its states as having given up some of their sovereignty to it. Is it worth referring to on a map of the UK - possibly. I must admit, it bothers me little. --Robdurbar 10:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No, you're right Mucky Duck, I'm suggesting the format of the maps used on the home nation pages should be the format we use, but only because this is the format used for the overwhelming majority of nation state pages in Wikipedia. The England/Scotland etc. pages have the benefit of being a starting point image to edit and revert to the former map of UK in a global geographical context.

Ah, I understand. That makes good sense. Mucky Duck 11:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't disagree with Robdurbar's points on the status of the EU, but whilst there are certainly constitutional/political links between the UK and the EU, there are also constitutional links between, say, the UK and the Commonwealth Realms with which the UK shares the same Head of State. We might be able to devise a map which represents the full range of UK political links but even if we could this does not belong in the summary box, not least as it is non-standard. That the EU has a unique institutional status should be represented on the Wiki entry for that organisation and not as part of the summary map for the UK. The map presently shown has a place somewhere but not in the position it presently occupies; we should revert to Wikipedia standards. JamesAVD 11:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. --Robdurbar 12:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate if the discussion could be continued at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Location_Maps_for_European_countries--_discussion_continues as it involves more than just this country. Regards, Asterion^talk 18:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Non-standard inclusion of EU accession date

A number of users are attempting to force the inclusion of EU accesion date into the infobox of this and other country pages. It's apparently been there for some time but I've only just noticed it myself. Clearly this is non-standard (cf. Mexico) and is potentially promoting a POV on the constitutional status of the EU which is not appropriate for an infobox; I suspect some of the users making this change have a particular agenda they are seeking to promote. The inclusion of this information has not been discussed or agreed amongst the contributors to this page and it should be. Until we have a consensus, please support me in keeping it out of the infobox? JamesAVD 15:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

1. New discussions go to the bottom of the talk page
2. This is standard across EU pages, and you'll notice that your attempt to change them all have been reverted by several different users, many of whom have warned you about it on your talk page.
3. It is a very bad idea to accuse four other users, three of which are admins, of having an "agenda"
4. It is downright suicidal to remove someone's comments (these) from a talk page

yandman 15:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It has been in the infobox for over 3 months on a highly watched page like this. All EU members have this date, and it is not surprising that Mexico doesn't, as there is no institution comparable to the EU in North America. could you please obtain consensus to remove this information at Template talk:Infobox Country where this discussion belongs? Kusma (討論) 15:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Consensus on your talk page User talk:JamesAVD favors inclusion of the accession date. Kusma (討論) 15:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please address the discussion being had here. We should (as a matter of policy) have a standard across Wikipedia for country infoboxes. Attempts to impose on as a result of decisions on a page non of us have visited is not sufficient (cf. watery bints handing out swords is no way to decide who runs the country).

It is a matter of your opinion that the EU is sufficiently different from (for instance) NAFTA to warrant a deviation from Wikipedia standards. The EU is a club with sovereign states as members. The existance of the EU depends, just like NAFTA, on treaties which sovereign states sign. An argument for including EU accession date is only as strong as an argument for inclusing date of joing in the UN (which is more relevant to nation states) or to any other regional bloc. From a UK prespective, the country has strong consitutional relationships with countries outside the EU: why not include these on a map? For the siple reason that we need a standard and NPOV approach to infoboxes. EU accession date, should, in my opinion, stay out. I'm interest in what others here think. Some other template page does not generate the interest or broad contributor base of a discussion page such as this. JamesAVD 15:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss this at Template talk:Infobox Country or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries since this is nothing that is relevant only to the United Kingdom page. Fragmented discussion works against standardization. Kusma (討論) 15:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You'll notice that the discussion is being held at Template talk:Infobox Country, where the consensus seems to be for the EU maps. If you want to discuss it, go there. It is considered bad form to try and undermine a consensus by starting the same discussion somewhere else. yandman 15:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You must be confused there is not a discussion being held at Template talk:Infobox Country what so ever. Just a link the the projects page. — MJCdetroit 18:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, contributor comments welcomed here or on any of the other various pages which Yandman or Kusma allocate. The consensus has yet to be established, except that the starting point should be a standard Wikiedia approach which avoids POV. JamesAVD 15:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see why we need a standard format over the entirity of Wikipedia, to be honest. But even if we do, it has already been acknolwedged when discussing the map that the EU is so much more than NAFTA, the AU, the Commonwealth or any other organisation of nation states. The AU cannot pass a law which supercedes Nigerian laws for example. Robdurbar 16:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You're expressing an opinion on the constitutional status of the EU. EU law can only superceded UK law (in this example) because the UK parliament says it can by acceeding to one of the EU treaties. If the UK revokes the treaty the EU goes away. The EU may have different characteristics to NAFTA but it is still not a nation state. The UK has important constitutional/political arrangements with other counties: should these all be shown on a map? To highlight other EU member states in a map for the UK implies a position on this debate which is either misleading, or non a neutral point of view. There's a reason we have a standard format: to avoid factual inaccuracies and points of view. JamesAVD 18:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, we're all getting confused here: the discussio on maps is above, this is the discussion of EU accession dates (though the arguments are related). JamesAVD 18:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE DISCUSS THIS AT Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Location_Maps_for_European_countries--_discussion_continues as it involves more than just this country. —MJCdetroit 18:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I've just noticed that two users attempted (see the history of this page) to REMOVE the discussion being had here! Can someone report these guys? How do I do that?! JamesAVD 15:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

They've since reverted their deletion of the subjects and move them here. JamesAVD 15:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

They were never removed, just moved to the proper place. Please check the facts before accusing other people of vandalism. Kusma (討論) 15:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No, as far as I can make out, you deleted them (perhaps accidentially) then reverted and moved them here. Apology accepted. JamesAVD 15:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No one has apologised to you. Please give a link showing deletion when making serious accusations like this. yandman 15:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Talk page. Its simply a bit of confusion. The standard format for talk pages states that we should have newer decisions at the bottom of the page. I presume the users were moving the talk down the page to follow these conventions. I don't think anyone here has been trying to vandalise; and I think JamesAVD genuinely thought that people were trying to disrupt the discussion. But its just a little confusion - calm thee all down :) --Robdurbar 16:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Government and politics

I think the following text understates the situation regarding the Scottish situation:

"The resurgence in Celtic language and identity, as well as 'regional' politics and development, has contributed to forces pulling against the unity of the state [25]. However, there is at present little sign of any imminent 'crisis' (at the last General Election, both the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru saw their percentage of the overall vote drop, though the SNP did gain two more seats and are the second largest party in the Scottish Parliament as well as official opposition). Nevertheless many in Scotland would like independence [26] although most English do not[27]."

The poll cited indicates majority support for independence, and since then, ICM have conducted another poll which gave a larger majority in favour (51% yes vs 39% no, 57% of those who expressed an opinion). ICM has polls dating back to 1998 which indicate average support for independence at 54%. While perhaps "crisis" is too strong a word, the intervention of UK politicians such as Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, and the Governor of the Bank of England in the current debate shows that there is concern in London regarding the Scottish elections in May 2007.

I would modify the text slightly thus:

"Nevertheless opinion polls in Scotland indicate that the majority are in favour independence [26] although most English are not[27]."

and add a reference to the ICM polls in addition to the YouGov reference.

Malcovic 22:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Opinion poll results go up and down like a ta... Well anyway, what I mean is that they're far too transitory to add to a general overview like this. That text should be deleted entirely, not just modified. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this page should be blocked....

Cities

I added Leeds as being able to claim 2nd city but someone removed it - Leeds is above Manchester here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_cities_by_population and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_districts_by_population and above Birmingham here http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=402384 . Therefore Leeds has equal claim to be second city.

Except that on the first list its beaten by Liverpool and on that latter one its behind Manhcester anyway. I don't like having lists of cities on the page - we should remove all three. --Robdurbar 16:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There's got to be some official definition of what constitutes a city population, As Wikipedia already seems to accept that the list used here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_cities_by_population is an accurate list of cities by population, surely we should just stick with that? But I don't think this whole "second city" thing is useful. People don't use the phrase to refer to the second largest - it also means second most important, or second most prestigious. As it is not an official title with no accepted definition, there is no NPOV factual information that can be given other than "there is no agreement what it means, there is no agreement which city it is, and here are some links to articles written by people from Birmingham, Manchester etc about why their city is the best". If the UK had an official second city then I would say it should be mentioned in this article, but as it doesn't I suggest it is best avoided. Hobson 19:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Economy

"The British economy is the home of the Anglo-Saxon model, focusing on the principles of liberalisation, the free market, 'common law' relating to property, and low taxation and regulation."

Low taxation?? This really needs reviewing... 194.6.79.200 04:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, we all think that we could pay less tax, but this is refering to comparisom with taxation levels in some countries on the continent (income tax in Denmark for example can be as high as 60%) whose economies historically follow a more socalist model. Whereas UK tax is higher than the US, compared to many western nations UK tax could be described as low Mammal4 08:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Geographical location

In the opening paragraph, the UK is described as being located in "west Northern Europe". That sounds somewhat awkward, although it seems to have been done to allow links to both Western Europe and Northern Europe. Any ideas for something better-sounding? We could use a link to North-West Europe instead. Cordless Larry 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)