The UK

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
21

I’m travelling on business, and will continue to be out of the country for the next two weeks, so I am unable to respond in full.

However, the sarcastic comments were directed at the question of the diff between Great Britain, England, and the United Kingdom, which is not in dispute, and which is right up there with “What’s the difference between Washington state and Washington DC”.

The filler information was taken from a World Almanach, although it is possible that a typo crept in (they do happen) in terms of the number of counties. The new developments relative to the Scottish Parliament are not found in any reference books but in current newspapers.

I will do my best to check things out when I get back. Always happy to get facts corrected, but frankly, DS, take your snide comments to the BBQ Pit. Or attach a check (cash is even better) when you send in a question.

22

heretic,

I realise that the Scottish Nationalists have around 35% of the vote in Scotland. Of course that leaves 65% in Scotland voting for other parties, and none in England (since I don’t think the SNP contest any constituencies there). You could certainly argue that the Welsh independence parties are in sympathy and count them, but that’s still a ‘splinter’ group in my definition.

I’m also not sure why you say no-one says Eire in English. I do! All I meant was the Republic of Ireland (like the football team) but Eire is shorter. No offence intended - I do understand that using the (London)Derry name can cause strong feelings.

23

Boo, CK! What are you, a lousy loser? DS was making a fair (though arguable) statement about the style of your mailbag answer. Nothing BBQ-able about it.

24

Holg – Reread the first sentence of DS’s comment, compare it to the normal conversational tone in this forum, and tell me again (with a straight face) why you think my response was out of line?

There have certainly been some Mailbag columns with errors – we don’t have Cecil’s staff to edit, and we don’t get paid. However, even Cecil has had to retract now and again.

Look at the lengthy list of Mailbag comments, count the number that have had errors (not differences of opinion, mind, and not typo slips), and tell me again how that percentage counts as “usual.”

You think you can do a better job, you’re welcome to it, open your own website. Or, send me an email telling me of your interests and areas of expertise, and I’ll let you tackle one and see how you fare…

25

I think DS’s comment had pretty much the same tone as the beginning of your mailbag article. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with either of them. You thought the question was kind of silly, and you made a remark; DS thought your answer looked kind of silly, and he made a remark. Fair play in my book. (DS seems to think you should change your tone, but I did say his statement was arguable. And he said ‘as usual’ - well, we all use hyperbole all the time!)

No one said they could do a better job. I know I couldn’t. I guess it’s human nature to be more generous with criticism than with praise, so let me just state once and for all that I’m happy and thankful to have the Straight Dope, including the mailbag items, the message board and everything! (no irony)

I do think, though, that you should be able to take what you dish out. You have a certain supercilious style which I like a lot, and I’ve gotten a few good laughs out of it. But if you make a mistake, the laugh is on you, and you just have to live with that.

In short, I don’t see what the problem is. You made a mistake, you’re human after all. People make snide commments. The best idea is to take it with grace.

26

As I said, it’s the “as usual” that got me.

27

I have, in the past, more politely pointed out to staff members that the tone they take in answers leaves them open to criticism, especially if they then themselves make a mistake. I don’t see any reason to be polite on the subject any longer; it is time the people who take on the responsibility to answer mailbag questions exorcised their condescending attitude to those that ask seemingly silly questions. After all, if the question is REALLY that silly, then it really doesn’t need an answer from the mailbag staff. On the other hand, if it is getting an official answer from the staff, then it deserves a polite approach.

The staff member belittled the person asking the question. Then the staff member made mistakes in answering the question. I pointed it out, with, I admit, less than a tactful statement. If staff can’t handle the suggestion that the answers be modified to eschew sarcasm that belittles, then perhaps staff shouldn’t be answering questions on a public web site.

28

The UK is technically a Kingdom, and includes the entire commonwealth. Canada was part of it until 1967 or so (that meant the Queen had to approve all of its new laws, though the veto power was never used), and Australia still is, having recently voted against breaking away. But Australia, India and other commonwealth countries have separate UN representation, passports, etc.

Northern Ireland is actually a disputed area, with Ireland (until last year) claiming it and thus giving its residents Irish citizenship, even though the UK gives them British citizenship. It has its OWN soccer
team (competing against both Ireland and England) though its players could choose to play for Ireland.

The monarchy has turned over control of the country to Parliament. The UK has no written constitution, but Parliament approved a measure giving Scotland its own legislature
for local matters (crime, education) but they are one country in foreign policy and have one currency. Its analogous to US states having local autonomy, though the US is one country.

Incidentally, Americans (even before the grant of home rule by the British parliament)
frequently referred to Scotland as a separate nation, refer to the UK as “England” (in US history, the nation is ALWAYS called England, even though the Act of Union had already occurred; schoolchildren are never taught that the revolution was fought vs. UK or Great Britain), and sometimes call the nation “Great Britain”.

Incidentally, England and Scotland compete separately in the Miss Universe contest, like they do in soccer. Miss Universe is a US based company. The Miss World contest, based in Britain, has one representative from the UK.

Interestingly, the US has a similar dichotomy with Puerto Rico–separate Olympic teams and Beauty contestants, but they are US
citizens and have no separate UN representation or passports.

29

What do you call an inhabitant of the UK if you don’t know whether he’s an Englishman, a Scotsman, a Welshman, or a (Northern) Irishman? A UKan perhaps? A United King (or a United Subject)? Of course, he’s a UK citizen, but that seems a bit clumsy (and impersonal) for everyday use.

I suppose he’d be a Briton for all practical purposes, but how would a person from Northern Ireland like being called that? What do politicians in the UK call their people so as not to ire anyone?

30

A) Scotland and England have continued to be, in some respects, separate countries all along. For example, the two countries have entirely different law codes; Scotland isn’t even a common-law country, but is rather a Roman-law country, like France.

B) A resident of Northern Ireland would probably be amused or distressed at being called a “Briton”, but it is not a very likely situation to begin with that one would know that someone was a subject of the UK and no more. Were that the case, “Subject of the United Kingdom” would have to serve.

C) Americans are taught that the Revolution was against England because that’s what we called it at the time. In 1776, due to two Scottish rebellions based rather on religion than nationality, the more recent in 1745, Scotland was practically an occupied country. The reason that Scots regard Sir Walter Scott, a poet and novelist, as one of their greatest national heros is that he, by his influence as a man of letters and by his personal friendships with people in high places, almost single-handedly made Scotland respectable again – but that was a generation or two down the line. When the Founding Fathers gazed across the seas, they saw a giant England, with Scotland an abused puppy being tugged behind on a leash.

John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams

31

I don’t think my scenario is that unlikely. At a recent conference, the speakers’ home countries were listed in the program, and it said ‘UK’ for persons from there.

What does Tony Blair say when addressing all his people? “My fellow citizens” sounds a bit dry and just doesn’t have the same emotion and patriotic appeal as Pres Clinton saying “my fellow Americans.”

32

One point I left out–unlike the US states (which were territories settled by people from other states before becoming states
themselves, and, in all but 3 or 4 cases, were not independent) England and Scotland
WERE separate nations, and very bitter enemies at that, and still have separate mindsets (the US southeast was like this at one time, and did secede, but that is a far cry from centuries of war). Their union was the fluke of the same man inheriting both crowns and (because of how monarchies work) becoming one nation. But citizens of Scotland think of themselves as Scotsmen, still celebrate Wallace’s victory over the English every year, have a separate soccer team that loves to beat England, etc.

As to a citizen of UK, I think Brit or Briton would cover Eng., Scot. and Wales but not N. Ireland, though the latter is a British subject. Now, as to Irish–in the US, it refers to an ethnic group that migrated en masse in the 19th cent. from an island that was entirely owned by the UK; most “Irish” are Americans now (it accounts for 25% of our population, or 60 million people) with no distinction between those from Ulster and those from Cork or Limerick, though there are Irish Catholic and Irish Protestant (or “Scotch-Irish”, though it should be Scots-Irish–scotch is a drink, not an ethnic group). In the US, people tended to marry the same religion, not the same ethnic group (ie Irish Catholics often married Italian or German Catholics, Protestants often married English Americans)
and Northern Ireland is seen as a religious
conflict more than a national one.

33

One final point–England is 80% of the UK’s population today, and its people are pro-American (UK is one of our closest allies) so we don’t mind using UK, Britain and England interchangeably when discussing the modern country. We also use the word Anglo, as in the Anglo-American attack on Hussein, but there again the Anglos were one of several tribes.

When talking about our ancestry, however, more of us are Irish or Scottish than English, and two centuries ago the populations may have been more equal (Ireland had 8 million people in 1800, but only 2 million in 1900, and I think Scotland was larger before the mass immigration to the US)
so we don’t say we are of “British” extraction, but rather English or Scottish or Irish protestant. Its kind of ironic that a nation descended primarily from anglophobes
(Irish, Scottish and German, but oppressed religious minorites from England like the Quakers) is now such a strong ally of the UK (which is 80% English), and I guess there is a lesson in there somewhere.

34

You can safely use “British” to refer to anyone from England, Scotland, or Wales. Scottish and Welsh nationalists don’t like the term too much, but at most you’ll get a polite correction.

Protestants in the north of Ireland consider themselves British. Catholics consider themselves Irish. So unless you know who you’re speaking to/about, it’s safest to avoid nationality completely and simply refer to the person as being from Northern Ireland.

35

Not even close. The Commonwealth countries are not part of the United Kingdom, and never have been.

The Queen still does “approve” the laws of Canada, Australia, and their respective provinces and states, but the “Queen” exists in these countries in much the same way that “the People” do in the U.S. It’s just a convenient legal fiction. It wasn’t really The People v. O.J. Simpson. It isn’t really “Her Majesty the Queen, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons” who “enacts as follows” in Can. statues. (There’s similar language in the UK, Aus., and at the second-order level.)

Independent of her status as the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, she is also the Queen of Canada and Australia. However, the powers that are conferred on paper to the Queen are generally exercised by the Prime Minister, Premier, or Cabinet, and the ceremonial roles are generally performed by the Governor-General or Lieutenant-Governor, as the case may be.

Canada’s centennial year was 1967; by 1931 the long-existing convention that Canada was independent in its legislative affairs was given formality, and in 1982 the last vestige – the lack of a constitutional amending formula exerciseable by the Canadian parliament and provinces – was abolished. However, pretty well from the institution of the present Canadian constitution in 1867, no amendment to the constitution was made without an address from the Canadian parliament, and no requested amendment was refused. The Westminster Parliament rubber-stamped whatever we faxed over.

Judicial independence came in 1949 with the abolition of appeals to the Judicial COmmittee of the Privy Council.

http://members.xoom.com/labradorian/

36

Maybe the commonwealth nations were not part of “Great Britain”, but they were (technically) part of the country the queen
presided over, (ie the British Empire) though the queen let local parliaments do what they want, much as Congress in the US could let NY and California do what they want. The commonwealth, in practice, was merely an association of countries with a similar heritage who met each year to discuss topics of mutual interest. The queen not enforcing her power (which was once very real) was like an emperor abdicating power–his colonies would become de facto countries again. Remember, a common monarch is what brought England and Scotland together as part of the same nation even though they have different legal systems
and feel like they are different nationalities. Query what would have happened if the queen did assert her power in Canada 20 years ago, or 70 years ago.

There are other complications. Even after 1931, a Canadian could have dual citizenship in the UK; (this may have been true with other commonwealth states as well, I don’t know) At the 1936 Olympics, Canada lost the ice hockey gold medal to “Great Britain”–it was a group of Canadians who did not make the national team, but were free to compete for Great Britain, and beat the national team in an upset–many of them had never set foot in Britain. Another is that there is a European Court that (by a multinational treaty) hears appeals from the highest courts of Ireland,
UK and other countries in Europe, who will sometimes overrule the highest court in that country–add this to the common market, and Western Europe in almost a single country, though it obviously does not have one prime minister. As a practical matter, UK of GB and NI are one country that voluntarily has given some home rule to its former states (just as US states have local govt.) and Canada, Aus and New Zealand have been separate countries, voluntarily given independence by the UK. Finally, some commonwealth colonies are still dependent or self-governing but not completely independet (Cayman Islands, Bermuda until about 20 years ago).

I have a different question–since soccer is an Olympic sport, and UK competes as one team, how does it form its soccer team? Do England and Scotland play off for the right to represent UK, or is there an all-star team from the four different teams, or what?

37

cuzco, that was covered earlier. The UK doesn’t compete in Olympic soccer.

38

OK, several comments, now that I’m back home.

  • Number of counties in Northern Ireland. The Rand McNally Desk Reference World Atlas lists eight: the two extra are Belfast CB and Londonderry CB, shown as separate counties. Not sure what the CB stands for, but that’s the origin of the Mailbag Article stating eight, and why the posters cite six. Glad for clarification.

  • On whether the Channel Islands et al are part of the United Kingdom. Again, the same World Atlas indicates the Channel Islands and Isle of Man are part of the United Kingdom, but have a special status as dependencies of the British Crown that are largely self-governing.

-On the Scottish Parliament. Yes, sorry, that is a new creation, not sure where the bit about Scottish Assembly sneaked in. We will correct the Mailbag item.

39

I think the CB stands for County Borough. Dex, how old is this atlas? NI used to be divided into eight administrative areas - the six counties plus Belfast (in County Antrim) and Derry City (in County Derry) - but that hasn’t been the case since 1973! Local government is now divided into 26 District Councils, but the primary geographic division is still the six counties.

40

The book is wrong. The Isle of Man and the channel islands are not part of the United Kingdom. From www.gov.im (note that the Isle of Man even has its own web domain):

From www.jersey.gov.uk:

On another point, the British Empire and the United Kingdom were never the “same country”, either.

John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams