User avatar
ManuCH
Crew
Topic Author
Posts: 2677
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:33 am

England Vs United Kingdom

Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:02 pm

Sometimes in threads here and there comments pop up about the fact that England "isn't a country", and some people seem to be genuinely offended if someone else says "in England this and that happened":

Quoting Nighthawk (Reply 10):
Quoting Jush (Reply 9):
You just cannot hire & fire here in Germany like you do that in England or the US.

ERROR: No country with the name 'England' found....

Now, I know Wikipedia isn't always correct, but for sake of simplicity I'm going to quote them anyway:

Quote:
England (...) is the largest and most populous constituent country[1][2] of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

They call England a "constituent country". So, is it actually wrong to talk about England like Jush did in his post in this thread? German Boss Fires Staff For Not Smoking (by Helvknight Jan 10 2008 in Non Aviation)

He didn't say "(...) like you do that in the sovereign country of England", he referred to England as a place, like you would by saying "in London" or "in Brooklyn" (which is a borough, not a city, but can still be mentioned).

Can this be considered offensive or somehow incorrect? Please enlighten me.
Never trust a statistic you didn't fake yourself
 
LHRjc
Posts: 1346
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:31 am

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:43 pm



Quoting ManuCH (Thread starter):
Can this be considered offensive or somehow incorrect? Please enlighten me.

To be honest, I don't get offended whatsoever. I am English, I was born and live in England. But I am also British, and was born and live in Britain. Both are correct. I don't get offended if anyone calls me English instead of British, or vice versa, and depending on where I am and what situation I'm in, I would use either England or Britain. Now if I were to mistake me for being Scottish... well that would be another story  biggrin 

I know a lot of Scottish people, and one of them in particular who shall remain nameless Nighthawk has to correct me quite often for saying something is English when I mean British, so I'm as guilty as people who aren't from England.. Or Britain.. or wherever.
"Our 319's are very reliable. They get fixed very quickly."
 
swiftski
Posts: 1837
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:19 am

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:46 pm

Whilst not the same, for us it's I guess comparable to being called "American (USA)" and "North American" and people classing the two as interchangeable. Sometimes they are (i.e. if you are from USA you are from North America) - other times they are not (i.e. the drinking age is 21 in "North America" is not true)
 
A320ajm
Posts: 587
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:57 pm

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:51 pm

If someone said England is not a country it would annoy me. I was born in England and i am English and no matter what anyone else says i live in a country called England. Yes, i am also British but i am English aswell.
Regards
A320ajm
If the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, 'This was their finest hour.'
 
User avatar
nighthawk
Posts: 4763
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2001 2:33 am

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:58 pm

Quoting ManuCH (Thread starter):
You just cannot hire & fire here in Germany like you do that in England or the US.

In this particular context the poster was referring to England as if it was its own unique entity, when in fact it is part of a larger entity, ie the UK, which should have been used in this case.

Its like saying "You just cannot hire & fire here in Germany like you do in london".

The sentence suggests that london is unique in its laws and that the rest of the UK has different laws, when infact the law is the same across the whole country.Britian/UK would have been the correct term. (although law is a bad example as there are differences between england/scotland)

Anyway, the reason such posts really irk me is that we are constantly told that Scotland is not a country, its part of the UK and we should be proud of that. yet everyone always refers to "england" rather than UK, completely ignoring the fact that we exist. IMHO either Scotland should be independent, or everyone should refer to us as the UK/britain.

Incidentally I nearly threw the remote through the TV last night, I was watching an american film, and some girl was choosing a holiday destination.... under the list of destinations in europe was Italy... France... Spain... England. England??? Wheres Scotland?? Do we no longer exist? Shouldnt it be Britain???

Anyway, hope you see where im coming from

[Edited 2008-01-10 14:00:50]
 
BCAL
Posts: 2925
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 10:16 pm

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:11 pm

I think the best description can be found in Encarta

Quote:
England (in Latin, Anglia), country and constituent part of the island of Great Britain, comprising, with the principality of Wales, the principal division of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

It is a country and constituent part of GB. It has its own flag, you have English Courts and legal system but the law is the law of England and Wales, and if this is your country of domicile they say you are domiciled in England and Wales. However, you are UK resident and have an UK passport. I think foreigners regard us as the British (except the French who call us the Rostbifs!) but English is more appropriate for those of us in GB who were not born/live in Wales or Northern Ireland and, of course, there is British Airways.

No doubt England's a.net ambassador Banco will enlighten us if/when he reads the thread.
MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
 
ALexeu
Posts: 1444
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:01 am

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:25 pm

Well, it is also ''more'' correct to say UK instead of Britain, because UK includes N.Ireland which is also incorporate part of UK Great Britain and N.Ireland.

I think it's more language problem. Arizona is a state, it is not a country (that we are aware of), but we also call Israel a state (but Israel is a country).
England is definetly not independent sovereign country, it is more like a subdivision of a country with higher autonomy. Similar status to US states.
 
gkirk
Posts: 23345
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2000 3:29 am

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:28 pm

England is a country.
As is Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales (we'll give them the benefit of the doubt - poor sods!  duck  )
When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
 
Klaus
Posts: 20578
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:32 pm



Quoting Nighthawk (Reply 4):
Incidentally I nearly threw the remote through the TV last night, I was watching an american film, and some girl was choosing a holiday destination.... under the list of destinations in europe was Italy... France... Spain... England. England??? Wheres Scotland?? Do we no longer exist? Shouldnt it be Britain???

Well, the colloquial name of your nationality is simply England.

I'm aware of the historical inaccuracy and the various resentments touched by that name, but that is simply the name people all over the world use in practice. Of course "United Kingdom" or "Great Britain" is the politically correct, precise and formal name, but few people use that one in real life.

It is a similar difference as between "Germany" and "Federal Republic of Germany" - one is the colloquial name of our nationality, the other the formal name of our nation state. And during the separation after WWII most people in the west often referred to only the western part as "Germany", even though that was formally incorrect. People just are like that.

It wouldn't have been entirely inconceivable that history could have ended up with our nationality being "Prussia" (or "Saupreißn" as bavarians would call any german from outside their own region state ) and people all over the world would call every german "prussian", even though the bavarians would be seething with resentment at that just like you're doing now...!  mischievous 

Quoting Nighthawk (Reply 4):
Anyway, hope you see where im coming from

How so? You seem to have crossed out what would have been your flag normally...!  stirthepot 
 
jamesbaldwyn
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 12:04 am

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:36 pm

I'd only be offended if I was to be called Welsh Big grin
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:46 pm



Quoting LHRjc (Reply 1):
But I am also British, and was born and live in Britain.

Technically, you live ON Britain.

Quoting AlexEU (Reply 6):
England is definetly not independent sovereign country, it is more like a subdivision of a country with higher autonomy. Similar status to US states.

Actually, not really. England has little, if any autonomy, while US states have a great deal.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 8):

Well, the colloquial name of your nationality is simply England.

Not at all. The colloquial used for his nationality is Scottish
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
ALexeu
Posts: 1444
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:01 am

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:00 pm



Quoting N1120A (Reply 10):
Actually, not really. England has little, if any autonomy, while US states have a great deal.

That's right, I forgot to say that. But not in int'l way. They are int'l just a country subdivision.
 
Glom
Posts: 2051
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:38 am

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:01 pm



Quoting ManuCH (Thread starter):
They call England a "constituent country". So, is it actually wrong to talk about England like Jush did in his post in this thread?

Yes it is. Employment legislation is a reserved matter and so is determined on a UK basis, therefore he should have referred to the UK, not England, which is just one of four home nations of the UK.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 8):
Well, the colloquial name of your nationality is simply England.

Well please shake the habit now or we start calling you Prussia. It's bad for unionism. Just look what you've done to Nighthawk. And he doesn't even speak Scots Gaelic. The Welsh and the Scots and the Northern Irish aren't English because they are obviously Welsh/Scots/Northern Irish (delete as appropriate). So when Johnny foreigner keeps conflating English and British, it makes the Welsh/Scots/Northern Irish (well maybe not quite the last but that's complicated) think also think the same.

That is another reason why the England team should sing Land of Hope and Glory (nice song as well) at the games. The Scots team sings Flower of Scotland, the Welsh sing Land of my Fathers (in Welsh mostly). Yet the English sing God Save the Queen. But God Save the Queen is the British anthem. So Scots and Welsh end up regarding their own anthem the same as the England team (ie with scorn). That's bad for the United Kingdom.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 8):
It is a similar difference as between "Germany" and "Federal Republic of Germany"

That's a bad example. In the colloquial name, you still get the ultimate point across. But by colloquially calling the UK England, you omit the Scots and the Welsh and the Northern Irish.

A better comparison would be "Britain" and "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
 
Glom
Posts: 2051
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:38 am

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:04 pm



Quoting N1120A (Reply 10):
Actually, not really. England has little, if any autonomy, while US states have a great deal.

England is under the direct rule of the central government. Not normally a problem when all of Great Britain was, but since devolution to Scotland and Wales, it has begun to be regarded as anomalous that there is no autonomy for England like Scotland and Wales.
 
antdenatale
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 3:08 am

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:13 pm



Quoting Jamesbaldwyn (Reply 9):
I'd only be offended if I was to be called Welsh Big grin

Well to be honest, I would rather be called Welsh than English any day of the week, at least us Welsh, our friends in Scotland and Ireland are not all a bunch of arrogant b***ards who think the world ends somewhere north of Newcastle and west of Bristol!!!  Big grin  Big grin  Big grin  Big grin  Big grin  Big grin  Big grin  Big grin
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:43 am



Quoting Glom (Reply 12):
Yes it is. Employment legislation is a reserved matter and so is determined on a UK basis, therefore he should have referred to the UK, not England, which is just one of four home nations of the UK.

Actually, given that Scotland has an entirely separate legal system to England and Wales, it's not unreasonable at all to talk about England rather than the UK.

On the issue of using England interchangeably with Britain, the irony is that Scots themselves used England as a synonym for Britain endlessly until really part way through the last century. That's actually because the English were the ones to subsume their identity within Britain, whilst the Scots and Welsh didn't. So England was endlessly used in place of Britain or the UK.

Only in the last generation or so has there been real sensitivity to the usage. And by the way, lots of Scots get irritated by being termed "Scotch", but that too was a perfectly acceptable term until fairly recently.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20578
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:24 am



Quoting Glom (Reply 12):
Well please shake the habit now or we start calling you Prussia.

Oh, by all means do that if it manages to amuse you - you would just not find many people who would understand what you were trying to say...!

Quoting Glom (Reply 12):
It's bad for unionism. Just look what you've done to Nighthawk.

I thought all you english people could take a bit of teasing...!  stirthepot 

Quoting Glom (Reply 12):
That's a bad example. In the colloquial name, you still get the ultimate point across. But by colloquially calling the UK England, you omit the Scots and the Welsh and the Northern Irish.

A better comparison would be "Britain" and "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

No. I was talking about the colloquial name. And that one all over the world is simply just "England" for most people (yeah, like "Scotland - that's in England, right?"  mischievous  ). The whole mess of unresolved occupations loaded with resentment and without a proper federal structure just has its downsides there.

I'm very thankful that Germany was actually united and wasn't just occupied and subsumed by one of its regional constituents (like Prussia). As a result there is relatively little internal resentment left - only the bavarians keep grumbling, but it's mostly low-impact folklore at this point.

Quoting Banco (Reply 15):
Actually, given that Scotland has an entirely separate legal system to England and Wales, it's not unreasonable at all to talk about England rather than the UK.

Almost nobody abroad makes that distinction in this way.
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:31 am



Quoting Klaus (Reply 16):
Almost nobody abroad makes that distinction in this way.

And why should they? They couldn't possibly be expected to know.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 16):
And that one all over the world is simply just "England" for most people (yeah, like "Scotland - that's in England, right?"

Well, to be honest, that's simple ignorance. It's not hidden in any way, and Scotland and England have pretty long histories.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20578
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:55 am



Quoting Banco (Reply 17):
Well, to be honest, that's simple ignorance. It's not hidden in any way, and Scotland and England have pretty long histories.

Yeah, but the occupation and subsumption of Scotland by England (instead of a unification of both under a shared roof) has certainly made this misunderstanding a lot easier than it might have to be.

Not that anybody living was to be faulted for it - it's just how things have been done in the past. But maybe a proper federalization of Britain can remove the remaining asymmetry and take away some of the still lingering strain.
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:04 am



Quoting Klaus (Reply 18):
Yeah, but the occupation and subsumption of Scotland by England

Errrr......you've just shown your ignorance (not a criticism) on the matter . There was no occupation and Scotland was not subsumed. Scotland freely CHOSE to unite with England. The idea that England conquered and absorbed Scotland is utterly laughable.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 18):
But maybe a proper federalization of Britain can remove the remaining asymmetry and take away some of the still lingering strain.

Ah, your pet subject. But clearly someone so clueless about British history is not worth paying the remotest attention to. Sorry.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
User avatar
ManuCH
Crew
Topic Author
Posts: 2677
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:33 am

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:26 am



Quoting Banco (Reply 19):
Quoting Klaus (Reply 18):
Yeah, but the occupation and subsumption of Scotland by England

Errrr......you've just shown your ignorance (not a criticism) on the matter . There was no occupation and Scotland was not subsumed. Scotland freely CHOSE to unite with England. The idea that England conquered and absorbed Scotland is utterly laughable.

*Grabs some popcorn* ...

Anyway, this turned out to be at least as interesting as I thought  Smile thanks for the various points of view. Probably Klaus got one of the main points: it's only a matter of calling the UK with its colloquial name, which happens to be England for many people, even if it's not formally correct. But I can understand that this irks some of those living there.
Never trust a statistic you didn't fake yourself
 
JakTrax
Posts: 4635
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:30 am

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:18 am



Quoting Antdenatale (Reply 14):
world ends somewhere north of Newcastle and west of Bristol!!!

Why, does it not?

 stirthepot 
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:47 am



Quoting ManuCH (Thread starter):
the fact that England "isn't a country",

-
if something is IN England or refers to matters IN England, it is no problem. But you should abstain from using the terms England/English when referring to things north of the Limes and when talking to people north of the Limes or when mentioning Glasgow or Edinburgh or Aberdeen or Inverness.
-
whenever not a problem really, you also should, out of fairness and politeness, use Great Britain / Britain / U.K./ British in regard to Wales and its cities like Cardiff etc .
-
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:56 am



Quoting Nighthawk (Reply 4):
ncidentally I nearly threw the remote through the TV last night, I was watching an american film, and some girl was choosing a holiday destination.... under the list of destinations in europe was Italy... France... Spain... England. England??? Wheres Scotland?? Do we no longer exist? Shouldnt it be Britain???

Maybe she MEANT England and decided that Scotland wasn't the place to go for holidays (like swinging London over murky Glasgow).  stirthepot   Wink

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Fri Jan 11, 2008 9:32 am



Quoting A320ajm (Reply 3):
If someone said England is not a country it would annoy me.

So that you can be permanently annoyed, as international organisations like the U.N., the E.U., ICAO, Red Cross etc do NOT have "England" as a country but either Great Britain or the United Kingdom or in the official was the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". And you as well might be annoyed about your passport, which most likely has this official name of the country on its top.
-

Quoting AlexEU (Reply 6):
Well, it is also ''more'' correct to say UK instead of Britain, because UK includes N.Ireland which is also incorporate part of UK Great Britain and N.Ireland.

This opens up the question about the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
> Is it the United Kingdom --- of GB & NI
or > Is it the --- United Kingdom of GB ---- and Northern Ireland
-

Quoting Klaus (Reply 8):
the colloquial name of your nationality is simply England.

you mean just as the colloquial name for Germans in Switzerland is "Schwaabe " ?  Big grin  Big grin
-


Quoting Glom (Reply 12):
Prussia.

As Prussia is now in Poland and Russia, you rather should use the nice name Teutonia ! Cheers
-

Quoting ManuCH (Reply 20):
the UK with its colloquial name, which happens to be England for many people, even if it's not formally correct.

It is not only "not formally correct", it is wrong IF things in Scotland or Wales are talked about
-
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Fri Jan 11, 2008 9:49 am



Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 24):
Prussia.

As Prussia is now in Poland and Russia, you rather should use the nice name Teutonia ! Cheers
-

Not really, a big part of former Prussia is today's Berlin and Brandenburg. As a Berliner, I'm a Prussian.

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
Glom
Posts: 2051
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:38 am

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:55 am



Quoting Klaus (Reply 16):
I thought all you english people could take a bit of teasing...!

Oh the English can take a bit of teasing. The Scots and the Welsh on the other hand have always been a bit testy. And the Irish totally take things WAY too seriously, hence the Troubles.

[

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 24):
This opens up the question about the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
> Is it the United Kingdom --- of GB & NI
or > Is it the --- United Kingdom of GB ---- and Northern Ireland

The former. The United Kingdom of Great Britain, or possibly just Kingdom of Great Britain depending on which source you take, was the country that dates from 1707 to 1800 after the first Union of the Parliament, but before the second.

That's why using "Great Britain" to mean the UK is inaccurate because it omits Northern Ireland. I always use UK when talking about the country and GB when talking about the largest island of said country.

That being said, I know there is a thing about the use of "Britain". I take that to be a suitably colloquial term for the UK, Northern Ireland included. I would interpret and use "Great Britain" to mean the island of Great Britain (comprising England, Scotland and Wales) and "Britain" to mean the country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I suppose use "Great Britain" in place of "United Kingdom" is forgiveable to some degree. I'm constantly referring to the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago as just "Trinidad". But using "England" is not.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 16):
And that one all over the world is simply just "England" for most people (yeah, like "Scotland - that's in England, right?" ).

Well that's wrong and people must be told.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 18):
Yeah, but the occupation and subsumption of Scotland by England (instead of a unification of both under a shared roof) has certainly made this misunderstanding a lot easier than it might have to be.

Now you're talking rubbish. You clearly don't know anything about British history. Scotland was not conquered and occupied by England. God knows we tried. The Scots are far less submissive than the Welsh. Instead, in 1707, both the Parliament of England and the Estates of Scotland passed the Acts of Union, which from May 1 1707, united to two kingdoms into a single kingdom named Great Britain with a single Parliament located at Westminster, the site of the Parliament of the now defunct Kingdom of England. It was a voluntary arrangement (although the Scots moaned about it like hell and continued doing so for 300 years).

Wales on the other hand was occupied and then annexed to the Kingdom of England. That's why it was not one of the three kingdoms to be represented on the Union Flag.
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:24 pm



Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 25):
As a Berliner, I'm a Prussian.

oh sure, no doubt about this !  Big grin  Silly
-
 
Klaus
Posts: 20578
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:30 pm



Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 24):
you mean just as the colloquial name for Germans in Switzerland is "Schwaabe " ?

Or "Piefke" in Austria.  cool 

Quoting Glom (Reply 26):
Oh the English can take a bit of teasing.

Unless, of course, you happen to mention Europe or the Euro - at that point they immediately pop a few screws and switch to rampage mode! Big grin

Quoting Glom (Reply 26):
That being said, I know there is a thing about the use of "Britain". I take that to be a suitably colloquial term for the UK, Northern Ireland included. I would interpret and use "Great Britain" to mean the island of Great Britain (comprising England, Scotland and Wales) and "Britain" to mean the country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

In german the only such form is "Großbritannien"; The shorter form is not used. That's another reason why most people simply stick with the shorter "England".

Quoting Glom (Reply 26):
I suppose use "Great Britain" in place of "United Kingdom" is forgiveable to some degree. I'm constantly referring to the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago as just "Trinidad". But using "England" is not.

Sure, not in any formal setting. But colloquially it's just "England" in the same way as "France" or "Germany". Nationality and the formal title of the nation state are just not the same thing.

Around here I generally try to remember using the politically correct "Britain" or "british", but that's pretty much an exception.

Quoting Glom (Reply 26):
Now you're talking rubbish. You clearly don't know anything about British history. Scotland was not conquered and occupied by England. God knows we tried.

Probably not formally, but that doesn't necessarily say much about the de facto events.

Formally Germany was "re-united", but in actual fact it was an almost hostile takeover, with pretty much everything on the eastern side being summarily scrapped and replaced with the respective western version.

To nobody's surprise that has had quite a few collective and individual consequences on the psychological level. And as far as I remember, the english/scottish "unification" didn't go all that much differently, even if the formal proceedings may have been correct on paper.
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:37 pm



Quoting Klaus (Reply 28):
And as far as I remember, the english/scottish "unification" didn't go all that much differently, even if the formal proceedings may have been correct on paper.

Since you've already ludicrously claimed that the unification was based on an English occupation and then subjugation, "as far as you remember" is not one of the most convincing points you could put across.

Of course, it would be too much to expect you to offer a mea culpa and actually ask what happened. Far better to carry on pontificating regardless and pretend that you weren't really made to look silly.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
User avatar
bwest
Posts: 1115
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:54 am

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:39 pm

Come to think of it... England, Scotland and Wales all have their own national soccer teams, but when the olympics come, there's no English or Scottish delegation, but a British one. And if I'm not mistaken, Britain will have an olympic soccer team at the 2012 Olympics. Isn't this a bit strange?
I love my Airport Job! :)
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:47 pm



Quoting Bwest (Reply 30):
Come to think of it... England, Scotland and Wales all have their own national soccer teams, but when the olympics come, there's no English or Scottish delegation, but a British one. And if I'm not mistaken, Britain will have an olympic soccer team at the 2012 Olympics. Isn't this a bit strange?

Not really. The British pretty much invented all those team sports and exported them around the world. It's only really the Olympics where we compete as a unified team, almost everything else is done individually. As for the 2012 football team, that remains highly controversial, with much of football utterly opposed to the idea of a single British team. Various ideas have been mooted, such as a home nations competition, with the winners representing Britain, but whether it will happen or not, no-one really knows. Even if it does, it would be a one-off, simply because the Olympics are in London.

The whole issue really stems from having a UK made of exceptionally ancient countries. There really isn't much of Europe that has that thousand year history as a set of defined nations. France, perhaps, but that's about it. Same goes for much of the rest of the world.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20578
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Fri Jan 11, 2008 9:26 pm



Quoting Banco (Reply 29):
Since you've already ludicrously claimed that the unification was based on an English occupation and then subjugation, "as far as you remember" is not one of the most convincing points you could put across.

Subsumed was the word, not subjugated. Not the same thing at all as far as I'm aware.

I've never claimed to be an expert on scottish history, so I don't have much if anything to prove.

But a formally correct joining of two countries is just not the same as one in fact and spirit, as recent german history has demonstrated as well.

It doesn't suffice to nail the treaties shut - a real union needs a real give and take; Every side recognizing themselves as a valid and fundamentally equal part of the whole.

So that's the question: Do all the parts of the UK see them as such, and if not, how did that come about?

Quoting Banco (Reply 31):
The whole issue really stems from having a UK made of exceptionally ancient countries. There really isn't much of Europe that has that thousand year history as a set of defined nations. France, perhaps, but that's about it. Same goes for much of the rest of the world.

With static national borders over that period? Well, island nations always have a leg up on that for obvious geographic reasons.

But is that really an explanation of the current cultural and political difficulties within the UK? I doubt it.
 
wrighbrothers
Posts: 1807
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 8:15 am

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:10 am

Here's my opinion:

I was born in England but am half Scottish, half english, therefore you could say I'm english ?
No, not in my opinion, I'm British, it's that simple for me personally,
I don't see what the big deal is, we're defended by and go to war as the British Army, not rhe Scottish Army or the English Army, your passport says 'The United Kingdon of Great Britian and Northern Ireland', not 'Scotland', or 'England or 'Wales' or Northern Ireland'.
The national flag, like it or lump it, at major political events, is the British Union Jack, not the St Georges cross or whatever.
Being English, Scottish or Welsh etc is just a regional identity, like saying your from Manchester or London,. nothing more really. If you're from London, it doesn't mean your now a national of London and can call yourself Londondish does it !?

This is just my opinion so don't feel you have to fry me for it because to be frank, I'm not too bothered about it, it's not really worth it all and is just petty in my eyes, all this 'I'm not British I'm...English or Scottish (or whatever)' doesn't do anything for me.
I'm proud to have Scottish and English heritage and support the both sides when they play football or rugby,

But I'm British, end of...
Wrighbrothers
Always stand up for what is right, even if it means standing alone..
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:27 am



Quoting Klaus (Reply 32):
Subsumed was the word, not subjugated. Not the same thing at all as far as I'm aware.

And equally wrong. Care to tell us all about this occupation you mentioned?

Quoting Klaus (Reply 32):
I've never claimed to be an expert on scottish history, so I don't have much if anything to prove.

And yet you felt free to pass on the fruits of your lack of knowledge by still pontificating? On another thread you had the nerve to try to pick me up on something where I asked a question, yet here you are talking utter bollocks as though it was gospel without once giving a clue that you knew nothing!

Quoting Klaus (Reply 32):
But a formally correct joining of two countries is just not the same as one in fact and spirit, as recent german history has demonstrated as well.

How would you know what it was about? You know nothing about it and have just admitted as much! Yet here you are (again) giving everyone the benefit of your ignorance! It's utterly laughable.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 32):
It doesn't suffice to nail the treaties shut - a real union needs a real give and take; Every side recognizing themselves as a valid and fundamentally equal part of the whole.

Right. And this applies to something you're ignorant of how, exactly? It amazes me that you freely admit you know nothing about a subject yet still carry on giving an opinion!

Quoting Klaus (Reply 32):
So that's the question: Do all the parts of the UK see them as such, and if not, how did that come about?

A highly complex question. And one for which we'd need a common frame of reference for an answer.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 32):
But is that really an explanation of the current cultural and political difficulties within the UK? I doubt it.

How can you doubt - or believe - what you don't understand in the first place? Ridiculous!

What you do is to take your prejudices and then assume that everything has occurred to re-inforce your prejudices. When it's pointed out that you're talking the biggest load of bilge possible, you simply carry on as if nothing has happened, building your castles in the air and assuming that your belief holds true.

Completely pointless.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:33 am

I think why (mostly older) people in Germany refer to whole of Great britain as "England" is that during the 19th and early 20th century the economical and political centres of the island were in England. Ok, Scotland had Glasgow as the industrial city, Northern Ireland Belfast and Wales Cardiff, but practically all ties between Germany and the UK during this time went through England (e.g. wellknown industrial products were clothes from Manchester and Lancashire, steel from Birmingham, coal from Newcastle, etc.). Scotland was known for kilts and whisky and Wales not at all.

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:46 am



Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 35):
I think why (mostly older) people in Germany refer to whole of Great britain as "England" is that during the 19th and early 20th century the economical and political centres of the island were in England.

Scale plays a pretty bit part. 80% of the UK population are in England. With that overwhelming majority in one constituent country, it's not that surprising in many ways.

Though I think you're point is a valid one. After all, we often use Holland and Netherlands interchangeably, when Holland is only one part of the country.  scratchchin 
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Sat Jan 12, 2008 12:53 am



Quoting Banco (Reply 36):
After all, we often use Holland and Netherlands interchangeably, when Holland is only one part of the country. scratchchin

I have a good friend who is living in Tilburg in the province South Brabant in the Netherlands and he goes ballistic if somebody calls the Netherlands "Holland". For him it is also a cultural issue:
According to him, up to the 1950s, the protestants from Holland have been ruling the predominatly Catholic southern provinces at the border to Belgium like a colony and been discriminating against the Catholics.

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Sat Jan 12, 2008 1:06 am



Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 37):
and he goes ballistic if somebody calls the Netherlands "Holland"

I wonder if it's an issue (in English anyway) that there are so many fewer syllables in Holland? Maybe it's easier to say? Though historically, English - and then British - naval rivalry was with Holland specifically. I don't really know, but I think we do say Holland far more than the Netherlands.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Sat Jan 12, 2008 1:17 am

Quoting Banco (Reply 38):
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 37):
and he goes ballistic if somebody calls the Netherlands "Holland"

I wonder if it's an issue (in English anyway) that there are so many fewer syllables in Holland? Maybe it's easier to say? Though historically, English - and then British - naval rivalry was with Holland specifically. I don't really know, but I think we do say Holland far more than the Netherlands.

I think it is again the same reason as for older Germans calling Britain England:
The political and economical center since the 16th century used to be Amsterdam and Den Haag, both in the province of Holland.
But when you had the wars against the Spanish in the 16th and 17th century (remember, back then the Netherlands were a province of the Spanish empire), you were talking about fighting in Flanders or the Low Countries.

Jan

[Edited 2008-01-11 17:18:41]
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
Glom
Posts: 2051
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:38 am

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Sat Jan 12, 2008 1:21 am



Quoting Banco (Reply 36):
After all, we often use Holland and Netherlands interchangeably, when Holland is only one part of the country.

I did actually ask a Dutch guy I worked with about that and he said there was no difference.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 28):
Unless, of course, you happen to mention Europe or the Euro - at that point they immediately pop a few screws and switch to rampage mode!

That much is true.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 28):
In german the only such form is "Großbritannien"; The shorter form is not used. That's another reason why most people simply stick with the shorter "England".

What's the German for United Kingdom?

Quoting Klaus (Reply 28):
Formally Germany was "re-united", but in actual fact it was an almost hostile takeover, with pretty much everything on the eastern side being summarily scrapped and replaced with the respective western version.

That does not apply to the Union of Parliaments. Scotland kept many of its old institutions and most importantly its legal system. It got the right to overrepresentation in the House of Commons. It got a Scottish Grand Committee. (both up until devolution when the former became unjustifiable and the latter became redundant)

Yes Scotland only went into it because they bankrupted themselves with the disasterous Darien Scheme plus fancied a bit of an empire, which England was rapidly building, but it was a Union.

Quoting Banco (Reply 31):
As for the 2012 football team, that remains highly controversial, with much of football utterly opposed to the idea of a single British team.

For crying out loud! How petty can people be? It's the Olympics, damnit!

The decision to allow individual home nation teams was probably the biggest blow to the Union their ever was. All this nationalist fervour only has a foothold because it is cemented through sport. If we had a single British team throughout, we'd also have a better chance of winning something as we'd be more likely to build a first rate team rather than a second rate team and three third rate teams.
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Sat Jan 12, 2008 1:26 am



Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 39):
But when you had the wars against the Spanish in the 16th and 17th century (remember, back then the Netherlands were a province of the Spanish empire), you were talking about fighting in Flanders or the Low Countries.

That's an interesting observation. Historians continually refer to the Spanish Netherlands here, but whether that was the terminology used at the time I don't know.

One side effect of that in English though, is the endless "Dutch" phrases - Dutch courage, double Dutch, Dutch comfort etc. The belittling of a rival through language is quite fascinating. Same with the French (French letter, French disease), and to some extent Spanish too. The rivalry with Germany came too late to have that effect on language. And it's not all one way either, the French themselves have endless terms that are abusive to the English.

What fun!
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Sat Jan 12, 2008 1:29 am



Quoting Glom (Reply 40):
The decision to allow individual home nation teams was probably the biggest blow to the Union their ever was.

It wasn't "allowed". These matches were the very first internationals in any of these sports! Just a natural thing.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Sat Jan 12, 2008 1:46 am



Quoting Glom (Reply 40):
Quoting Banco (Reply 36):
After all, we often use Holland and Netherlands interchangeably, when Holland is only one part of the country.

I did actually ask a Dutch guy I worked with about that and he said there was no difference.

He is probably from Holland. I have noticed that people from the province Holland often use Holland and Netherlands interchangeably, but people from other provines react allergic to it.

Quoting Banco (Reply 41):
Same with the French (French letter, French disease)

Well, the French call a "French Letter" a "Capote Anglaise" (An "English cap").

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
Klaus
Posts: 20578
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Sat Jan 12, 2008 1:48 am

Oh boy. So much for the fabled british composure.  mischievous 

Quoting Banco (Reply 34):
And equally wrong. Care to tell us all about this occupation you mentioned?

As for the infamous "subsumed" - I had been applying it to a hypothetical alternative german history, not to Britain:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 16):
I'm very thankful that Germany was actually united and wasn't just occupied and subsumed by one of its regional constituents (like Prussia). As a result there is relatively little internal resentment left - only the bavarians keep grumbling, but it's mostly low-impact folklore at this point.

As for the "occupation", that was indeed a simplification which is probably not formally correct.

I refreshed my somewhat fuzzy memory about scottish history a bit with this page:

History of Scotland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course I'm aware of the relative reliability of Wikipedia, but I trust you will shine the light of your unassailable detail knowledge over me in case of any grave errors contained therein.

The following passage largely resonates with my earlier recollection:

Quote:
Industrial Revolution, Clearances, and the Enlightenment

After 1745, British authorities acted to destroy the Scottish clan system in parliamentary acts of extreme vengeance. All aspects of Highland culture including the language were forbidden on pain of death. Highlanders were forced into the British Army to serve in the wider British Empire. Clan Chiefs were encouraged to consider themselves as owners of the land in their control, in the Lowland manner - it was previously considered common to the clan.

Maybe it's just me, but that would feel pretty much exactly like a brutal foreign occupation to me, whether it satisfied specific formal criteria or not.

And this is pretty exactly the kind of thing that can plant the seeds for particularly enduring resentment and hostility, whether that actually applies to this case or not and whether there were formally valid reasons behind those actions or not.

What I've been talking about is the difference between formal correctness and real or subjective psychological damage that can be done at the same time nevertheless.


I have nowhere claimed to "know better" or that anybody was in any way obliged to agree with me. Topical response is welcome as always, but your wholesale fatwah was quite a bit over the top, really.

Quoting Banco (Reply 34):
On another thread you had the nerve to try to pick me up on something where I asked a question

My complaint was that you posed one of the infamous "Why is it that this is a fact?" questions without a basis for the claim contained within. The question was okay, the claim not quite as much.

Quoting Banco (Reply 34):
What you do is to take your prejudices and then assume that everything has occurred to re-inforce your prejudices. When it's pointed out that you're talking the biggest load of bilge possible, you simply carry on as if nothing has happened, building your castles in the air and assuming that your belief holds true.



Quoting Banco (Reply 34):
Completely pointless.

Well, maybe it was actually your own last post that was a bit high on personal attack and a bit thin on argumentative content.  mischievous 
 
Klaus
Posts: 20578
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Sat Jan 12, 2008 1:56 am



Quoting Glom (Reply 40):
What's the German for United Kingdom?

"Vereinigtes Königreich", but it is only very rarely used, mostly as a quote / unquote kind of literal translation.

Quoting Glom (Reply 40):
That does not apply to the Union of Parliaments.

Okay; I didn't claim it did. There are numerous obvious differences between the german re-unification and the union of Britain, but I was using it to illustrate the basic principle of formal vs. psychological effects.
 
Glom
Posts: 2051
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:38 am

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Sat Jan 12, 2008 2:26 am



Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 43):
I have noticed that people from the province Holland often use Holland and Netherlands interchangeably, but people from other provines react allergic to it.

Wow, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom have a lot in common.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 44):
The following passage largely resonates with my earlier recollection:

Except that the Union had lasted for generations by then and so the "British" that are mentioned were probably as much Scottish in origin and they were English. So to say that England subsumed Scotland is to lump a lot of blame on the English while absolving the Scots of any complicity (quite a Scottish thing to do actually). Add to that your extract clearly mentions that the highland clearances attempts to force a lowland social structure on the highland communities. In other words, it was more accurate to say Southern Scotland subsuming Northern Scotland than England subsuming Scotland.

Does kind of go to show how arbritrary most these "nationalities" are. If we are to define nations based on cultural connections, then probably we would have and England reaching up to about Merseyside with satellite components in Pembrokeshire. Wales would be Wales minus Pembrokeshire and Monmouthshire.

What we would also have is a new nationality extending from about Lancashire up through the lowlands of Scotland. This might be something akin to the ancient kingdom of Strathclyde. As far as cultural heritage goes, Glasgow has far more in common with Newcastle than does either with either Inverness or Birmingham.

I will no doubt get flamed (probably justly on many points), but what we need is clear recognition than nations are accidents of history, composed of the assorted fragments of previous nations. There is no more sense to defining Scotland within the borders we do, or England within the border we do, than there is the United Kingdom, with its strange border with the Republic of Ireland. In fact, as far as Great Britain and Ireland are concerned, the only somewhat naturally logical nations to have existed were the Kingoms of Great Britain and Ireland (nations defined within the shores of two small islands makes a lot of sense) and possibly to a lesser extent the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (where those two little islands, sitting right next to each other, are joined together). Anything else is pure sentimentality.

Don't get me wrong. There's nothing wrong with that. I'm extremely sentimental about the UK's current illogical borders. But I admit it's just sentimentality. I wish certain others have the same introspection. It might have rendered our history a little less bloody.
 
jetblueguy22
Posts: 2509
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:26 am

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Sat Jan 12, 2008 2:31 am

I didn't know that there was a difference between being British or English. It really shows how much they teach us about other countries in America! I guess you really do learn something new everyday.
Blue
All of the opinions stated above are mine and do not represent Airliners.net or my employer unless otherwise stated.
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Sat Jan 12, 2008 2:32 am



Quoting Klaus (Reply 44):
Well, maybe it was actually your own last post that was a bit high on personal attack and a bit thin on argumentative content.

A bit pointless to argue with someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.

Nice try with the Highland clearances, but even Wikipedia is careful to use the word British, not English, though you palpably missed that. It was mainly carried out by Lowland Scots, not the evil dastardly English. On other words, your attempt to equate it to an English occupation is, once again, bollocks.

Quite simply, there is no argument to be had, because you are completely clueless about British history. No shame in that, it isn't your country, but you do continue to pop up with your opinion on things you know nothing about.

I simply cannot argue with you because you don't understand the subject. I do not debate the finer points of German history because I do not know enough about it. I would suggest you do the same with British history - or go and do some extensive reading.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20578
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: England Vs United Kingdom

Sat Jan 12, 2008 2:40 am



Quoting Glom (Reply 46):
So to say that England subsumed Scotland is to lump a lot of blame on the English while absolving the Scots of any complicity

Well, as I've explained above, I never claimed that to have taken place exactly like that - that was Banco's re-interpretation of my very different statement.

And I don't assign any blame either - but historical events often have consequences, which are often key to an understanding of the present. Which of course does require a certain level of introspection on all sides as you've stated yourself.

Quoting Glom (Reply 46):
Don't get me wrong. There's nothing wrong with that. I'm extremely sentimental about the UK's current illogical borders. But I admit it's just sentimentality. I wish certain others have the same introspection. It might have rendered our history a little less bloody.

And that does of course apply universally, not just in Britain.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aerlingus747, Polot and 20 guests