The same is true if you substitute Ireland for Scotland or Wales.
Amusingly, I have found that Scots find it insulting that England fans want them to win. Their argument seems to go along the lines of “it is patronising” which is just bollocks. We simply want you to win. I mean lets cover that again, their are significant numbers of Scotland fans that think England fans wanting to win is somehow insulting to Scotland.
When you are dealing with that sort of logic then you may as well give up.
Not an arrogant disregard, no, but ignorance of the multitude of various terms, both current and historical, can cause people to be inaccurate inadvertently, and this is what I see in Fake Tales of San Francisco’s post (and subsequent explanation).
It’s not just the English who have this infatuation with the stereotype of Ireland and the Irish, it’s a worldwide phenomenon.
Even more amusing is when their stance is one you’d take against glory-hunters. Because Scotland’s such an obvious choice for fickle fair-weather friends :dubious:
That should have read " I mean lets cover that again, there are significant numbers of Scotland fans that think England fans wanting Scotland to win is somehow insulting to Scotland."
Unfortunately I seem to have missed the edit deadline.
Necessary Trainspotting quote: “Some people hate the English. I don’t, they’re just wankers. We, on the other hand, are colonised by wankers.” 
I think this might have something to do with economics; remember, it wasn’t all that long ago that Ireland was among Europe’s poorest countries. The whole “Gaelic Tiger” thing has changed that, of course, but I think people (everywhere) still have this romantic impression of Ireland as a place full of happy drunk peasant farmers wearing homespun clothes.
I am afraid that the “Gaelic Tiger” is no more (at least for the moment). Ireland is suffering from one of the deepest resections in the whole of Europe
Are you being serious? In my experience every English person I know takes gleeful delight in watching Wales or Scotland lose. When I was watching Wales-France in the rugby a couple weeks ago the pub didn’t really know who to cheer for because we were all desperate for both sides to lose!
I suppose you probably get some English people who’ll support Wales or Scotland against foreign countries simply because they’re British, but in general the attitude English people have towards the Scots and Welsh is very different to the one we have for the Irish. We treat the Scots and Welsh like Americans treat Canada, whereas we treat Irish exactly like Americans treat the Irish. (If someone introduced themselves in England as Welsh they’d probably get ‘oh God. I’m sorry mate, chin up’ etc. If they said they were Irish they’d probably elicit jealousy if anything!)
…after everyone was finished telling “Paddy and Mick” jokes.
Yes. The occasional experience you have had may be against the norm, but in general what I wrote is true.
Maybe if it is was the 1970s.
The Gaelic Tiger is what the ladies call me 
. The Celtic Tiger is indeed dead though, 
no more organic latte SUVs.
Did you hear the one about the Englishman, Irishman and the Scotsman who walked into this bar?
Go on, finish it, I dare you
Celtic, Gaelic, whatever. Anyway, you’ll always have the memories. Also, Riverdance.
My definitions speak to the “country but not a nation” line. They weren’t meant to be all encompassing.
But if you want to engage that issue, just for fun, I think there’s room to argue that there aren’t autonomous governments there or even that they are, indeed, countries. Historically, people often referred to any swath of territory as a “country.”
I’ll be able to buy a house too so I’m not so bothered!
And the barman said, “Don’t you need a Welshman for this kind of joke?”
Good explanation. What I wonder about is the use of the word “nationality”. As in, “the Austro-Hungarian Empire was home to a variety of nationalities.” How is it different from “nations”?
Of course, “nationality” is also often used as a near-synonym of “citizenship”.
I hear it sometimes, usually when mentioning Quebec along other countries, if it wouldn’t make sense to use “Canada” instead. For example, “a group of French-speaking countries including France, Cameroon and Quebec have signed <such and such agreement>” assuming the Government of Quebec and not the Government of Canada is part to the agreement. Or from here:
Again, here Quebec’s (not very well-known elsewhere in Canada, or else “Canada” would be more accurate) television industry is implicitly compared to other countries’.
Interestingly, I think I understand the sentiment. I’m sure you don’t intend to be patronizing, but I understand how it could give this impression. I find it hard to explain, though.
Both terms can have specific legal definitions, depending on the jurisdiction, as demonstrated by this page, which 'explains what British citizenship is, and what other types of British nationality there are.
It’s “United Kingdom,” singular. Scotland & England are two countries, one kingdom.
Traditionally, Great Britain (the island) includes Britain (Latin Britannia) & Caledonia. Britannia was ruled by the Romans, Caledonia was not. Modern Britain includes the countries of England & Wales, which were once the Kingdom of England. Modern Caledonia is called Scotland.
The state that includes all of them & Northern Ireland is,“the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.” It can be called the United Kingdom or UK for short; but many from outside the British Isles refer to it as “Great Britain;” or just “Britain,” indicating the main part. Some would even just say “England” after the most populous country in the UK & center of political power.
Or, what Ximenean said.