The UK has the odd Richter 5 earthquake, but there are swarms of quakes that we simply don’t notice. Plus we have no volcanoes. Is there a country more geologically stable?
This site has some quite informative maps.
Basically: Stay away from the edges of tectonic plates, especially the edge of the Pacific plate, and you’re pretty safe (from that particular risk, of course).
That map was interesting. My bet was for Australia not Brasil.
West Africa looks safest, but some of that might be down to the way the map is projected.
I only remember two earthquakes in 50 years (and I don’t think we had any casualties?).
No volcanoes and no signifcant tornadoes, plus no hurricanes (apparently the ‘Great Storm’ 10 years ago was just a storm).
For tornados-per-square mile the UK is the most tornado prone country in the world!
Yes. A hurricane is a tropical cyclone. The 1987 storm (you’re getting older than you think 
) was a bog-standard north Atlantic one, which did easily hit Force 12 on the Beaufort Scale, misleadingly called ‘Hurricane Force’.
In any case, storms of any kind aren’t geological!
repeat
Well, I’m not 50 yet and I can remember three in the last ten years alone - the recent one in Lincolnshire, another in the West Midlands and one in Kent.
I’m surprised that Russia has so few, what with the Urals and the collision between Asia and Europe.
My thinking (as a geology major) would be West Africa, as there are no subduction zones or hot spots. The mid-Atlantic ridge is a spreading zone, and as long as the continent is on the same plate, that doesn’t cause problems- like the Eastern Seaboard of N America, for example. The East Pacific rise is similar to the mid-Atlantic, however, the Cocos plate, to the east of the rise, is being subducted under S America- hence the Andes. Brazil is probably far enough from the west margin of the plate to not have many problems, either.
Basically, stay away from subduction zones and your okay. But, there are a few “hotspots” that may show up in the middle of a plate, such as Hawaii and Yellowstone. The hot spot stays in the same place, and the plate moves over it, which is why the Big Island has all the activity, and each island to the northwest gets that much older. Once you get past all the small islands like Midway, there are the Emperor Seamounts, which head more to the north- a clue showing the change in the direction of movement of the Pacific Plate. Okay, now I’m rambling.
The Urals are one of the oldest ranges in the world, and iirc, Asia and Europe are now considered to be one plate.
Unless you live in New Madrid, Missouri or nearby.
There is some speculation that New Madrid is part of a failed rift that extends up to Lake Superior. Has there been much activity there lately? Of course, in geologic time, there has, but anything major since 1814?
Yes, but the American Midwest - an area far larger than Great Britain, I might add - has them beat by a very wide margin.
Define “major”
Not like some of the quakes California has had, but a few years ago we had a quake that was enough to wake everyone in the house up - although it did no damage. We’re on the north end of the Madrid zone, so while it hasn’t had a major quake since the early 1800’s there’s no mistaking that it’s still an active fault.
Generally, Australia is considered the most stable continent. At least, that’s what I learned in Geology class.
I have heard that as well but I don’t think we are talking about nearly the same class of tornadoes that occur over much of the U.S. Those are the ones that can destroy your house in the middle of the night, suck up your entire family and then fling your car a few streets over.
A more reasonable index is Fujita scale of which the strongest tornado I could find for the UK was and F2. That is nothing to laugh about but tornadoes much stronger than that hit somewhere in the U.S. many times a month during the warm seasons.
Perhaps not scientific, but I believe in Bill Bryson’s 'Short history…" he states that Australia has on it’s surface some of the oldest rocks on the planet. I.E. they’ve been there a long time and not sub-ducted as much of the land has.
So, there’s ‘stable’ in terms of fewest earthquakes and then there’s ‘stable’ in terms of ‘just lying there’
Not entirely free from earthquakes though. Check this Wikipedia article.