# Why are some people enjoying the possible break up of the UK? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 10, 2014, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-some-people-enjoying-the-possible-break-up-of-the-uk/685820 "2014-04-10T20:46:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 19
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-some-people-enjoying-the-possible-break-up-of-the-uk/685820/361 "2014-05-07T06:26:59Z")
> [@Dr.Drake](#): > > Are you aware of the history of the term “British”? Right up until the union, it was used to refer to the indigenous minority (Cornish and Welsh) in contradistinction to English and Scottish. > > It’s a bit irritating to hear that you couldn’t possibly give up a term your newish nation stole and co-opted within relatively recent history. > > Here are some cites from the OED: > > 1.a. Of or relating to the Brittonic-speaking peoples originally inhabiting all of Britain south of the Firth of Forth before and during the Roman occupation. > > OE _Poenitentiale Theodori & Capitula d’Acheriana_ (Brussels) in F. J. Mone _Quellen u. Forschungen zur Geschichte der teutschen Literatur u. Sprache_ (1830) 519 Ða ðe beoð gehadede fram Scyttiscum preostum oððe bisceopum, oððe fram Bryttiscum. > OE _Anglo-Saxon Chron_. (Tiber. B.i) anno 508, Her Cerdic & Cynric ofslogan anne brittiscne [lOE \*Laud \*bryttiscne] cing. > > Most of the use of the word for the first thousand years of its attestation either refers to the name of the island, or to the Welsh and / or Cornish or their ancestors. > > There are four citations before 1603 (the Union of the crowns) for “British” meaning “of Britain.” The first two, one in Old English and one from 1398, clearly refer to geography. The earliest use of “British” to mean “of the nation governed from London in post-Roman times” is from 1548: > > _Hall’s Vnion_: Henry VI f. cv, The lorde of Rustinan Marshall of Britayn, assembled a greate company of the Britishe nacion, whiche fortefied & repaired the toune of Pountorson. Four Citations and one from before the Union, now, how popular was the usage of British in the vernacular of that period? It wouldn’t sound right in modern times due to its current meaning being a consequence of a Union of the two states for the last 300 years, without that, it becomes an anachronism, it would only really be applicable to the geographical area, which I bet, is what those citations are referring too, and it would be hard to remove the association of Unionism with the term British. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-some-people-enjoying-the-possible-break-up-of-the-uk/685820/362 "2014-05-07T06:43:15Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > I’ve complained about anti-English attitudes by an _Englishman_ who lives in Scotland and in my opinion, tries to act more (How he sees it) Scottish than the Scots in order to integrate, which is wrong because no one will respect you unless you respect who you are (Just like many Scots, Irish and Welsh do) > People will find any reason to hate given the chance, I wouldn’t be surprised even if independence was granted, that people who hate the English wouldn’t have their attitudes changed. You make so many assumptions. I openly and loudly support England at Rugby and Cricket (and tangentially soccer) and banter over such rivalry between Scotland and England. I openly criticise the Anyone But England culture that goes with romantic faux nationalism. I joke that most Scots support a Premiership club! What saves me is a vocal support for the Scottish way of doing things, their communality, sense of humour, easy Europeanism, and their view of the lowly in society. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-some-people-enjoying-the-possible-break-up-of-the-uk/685820/363 "2014-05-07T06:48:04Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > This I agree with, I think the UK is sleepwalking into disaster, and I think, there wouldn’t be much support for independence if government was devolved on a national level across the UK. I agree. The way the Westminster Government has approached this- the knocked back vote for devolution, demeaning attitudes (seen clearly here) questioning Scottish competence, and blaming the Scots for doing better than England on similar money in education, health service, local government, prison policy and so on. If devolution had been treated seriously, that is where we would be. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-some-people-enjoying-the-possible-break-up-of-the-uk/685820/364 "2014-05-07T06:50:24Z")
> [@filmstar-en](#): > > Taking party political stance on a constitutional change as big as this a mistake (except perhaps for the SNP for which the issue is its raison d’etre and its only clear policy.) > > Tariq Ali is an old Marxist chancer who is just taking a pot shot at his class enemy. With friends like that, you don’t need enemies. You may have missed the fact that the SNP has had very adequate policies to run a successful administration four the past four years. Labelling it as a single issue party is to misunderstand current Scottish politics. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-some-people-enjoying-the-possible-break-up-of-the-uk/685820/365 "2014-05-07T13:42:29Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > Four Citations and one from before the Union, now, how popular was the usage of British in the vernacular of that period? It wouldn’t sound right in modern times due to its current meaning being a consequence of a Union of the two states for the last 300 years, without that, it becomes an anachronism, it would only really be applicable to the geographical area, which I bet, is what those citations are referring too, and it would be hard to remove the association of Unionism with the term British. It was the standard word, and continues to be used in its original meaning for the Welsh / Cornish / Bretons before they diverged. The OED has tons of citations. Words change, and it’s not a huge deal, but for the first thousand years of its history, “British” meant “from Britain, but not English or Irish (i.e. not a Gael).” Then it started to mean “person from the UK,” and you’ll survive if it changes again. The Welsh and Cornish did. (Bretons still call themselves “British” in their language, though there have been a few sound changes—_Breizhiz_.) ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-some-people-enjoying-the-possible-break-up-of-the-uk/685820/366 "2014-05-07T14:49:03Z")
> [@Dr.Drake](#): > > It was the standard word, and continues to be used in its original meaning for the Welsh / Cornish / Bretons before they diverged. The OED has tons of citations. > > Words change, and it’s not a huge deal, but for the first thousand years of its history, “British” meant “from Britain, but not English or Irish (i.e. not a Gael).” Then it started to mean “person from the UK,” and you’ll survive if it changes again. The Welsh and Cornish did. (Bretons still call themselves “British” in their language, though there have been a few sound changes—_Breizhiz_.) And British is tangential to NI- It is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, although Britain has been used by the Government for over fifty years to mean the UK! Anyway, even after independence it will still be a United Kingdom, just with two independent politico-national entities in it. I cannot see them going back to Scots numeration making Liz Elizabeth the first of Scotland. ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-some-people-enjoying-the-possible-break-up-of-the-uk/685820/367 "2014-05-07T18:55:01Z")
> [@](#): > > **Dr. Drake** > It was the standard word, and continues to be used in its original meaning for the Welsh / Cornish / Bretons before they diverged. The OED has tons of citations. > > Words change, and it’s not a huge deal, but for the first thousand years of its history, “British” meant “from Britain, but not English or Irish (i.e. not a Gael).” Then it started to mean “person from the UK,” and you’ll survive if it changes again. The Welsh and Cornish did. (Bretons still call themselves “British” in their language, though there have been a few sound changes—Breizhiz.) I’m not talking as if I won’t survive it, I’m stating that the term Britain will be obsolete as the United Kingdom in the political sense would of been destroyed. Britain as a political entity is associated with Unionism, I doubt highly that any Scot is going to call themselves ‘British’ or ‘From Britain’ if they go independent. And I wouldn’t want to be called British if Scotland leaves, because as I said before, it would of become an anachronism. > [@](#): > > **Pjen** > I agree. The way the Westminster Government has approached this- the knocked back vote for devolution, demeaning attitudes (seen clearly here) questioning Scottish competence, and blaming the Scots for doing better than England on similar money in education, health service, local government, prison policy and so on. Where are your cites for these assumptions? It’s easy to do better when you have a population of 5 million on similar money for a population back in England of around 50 million! > [@](#): > > You make so many assumptions. I openly and loudly support England at Rugby and Cricket (and tangentially soccer) and banter over such rivalry between Scotland and England. I openly criticise the Anyone But England culture that goes with romantic faux nationalism. I joke that most Scots support a Premiership club! > > What saves me is a vocal support for the Scottish way of doing things, their communality, sense of humour, easy Europeanism, and their view of the lowly in society. What doesn’t save you is your denigration of your own heritage to accommodate the people you live around. What exactly is this ‘easy Europeanism’ that you speak of? You talk of the Scots as if you’re living with some primitive tribe. > [@](#): > > Anyway, even after independence it will still be a United Kingdom, just with two independent politico-national entities in it. I cannot see them going back to Scots numeration making Liz Elizabeth the first of Scotland. It will be anything but a United Kingdom. That’s like saying England and Canada are a United Kingdom because they share the same Monarch. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2014, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-some-people-enjoying-the-possible-break-up-of-the-uk/685820/368 "2014-05-07T21:05:27Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > I’m not talking as if I won’t survive it, I’m stating that the term Britain will be obsolete as the United Kingdom in the political sense would of been destroyed. Britain as a political entity is associated with Unionism, I doubt highly that any Scot is going to call themselves ‘British’ or ‘From Britain’ if they go independent. And I wouldn’t want to be called British if Scotland leaves, because as I said before, it would of become an anachronism. > > Where are your cites for these assumptions? It’s easy to do better when you have a population of 5 million on similar money for a population back in England of around 50 million! > > What doesn’t save you is your denigration of your own heritage to accommodate the people you live around. What exactly is this ‘easy Europeanism’ that you speak of? You talk of the Scots as if you’re living with some primitive tribe. > > It will be anything but a United Kingdom. That’s like saying England and Canada are a United Kingdom because they share the same Monarch. There will be a nice difference between Elizabeth II Queen of Canada- a creation less than a century ago as a separate person, and Queen Elizabeth as is and has been for centuries, one person being a joint monarch of a United Kingdom. I doubt that there will be any Act to create a separate Monarchy for Scotland. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-some-people-enjoying-the-possible-break-up-of-the-uk/685820/369 "2014-05-08T01:31:10Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > I’m not talking as if I won’t survive it, I’m stating that the term Britain will be obsolete as the United Kingdom in the political sense would of been destroyed. Britain as a political entity is associated with Unionism, I doubt highly that any Scot is going to call themselves ‘British’ or ‘From Britain’ if they go independent. And I wouldn’t want to be called British if Scotland leaves, because as I said before, it would of become an anachronism. At most, the term might become obsolete as an adjective pointing to a political entity, since there will no longer be a political entity including all parts of Britain. But if you see Britain as a cultural or national entity as well as a political entity, then obviously the term will survive as a referent for that cultural or national entity. In the future a Scot may or may not identify as British, just as in the present someone from Northern Ireland may or may not identify as British. That doesn’t mean that the term “British” will have no meaning. (Besides, it will almost certainly survive as the adjective pointing to the political entity comprising England, Wales and Northern Ireland. There will clearly be a need for such an adjective, and I can’t think of anything which is likely to supplant “British” in that role.) ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-some-people-enjoying-the-possible-break-up-of-the-uk/685820/370 "2014-05-08T01:37:50Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > There will be a nice difference between Elizabeth II Queen of Canada- a creation less than a century ago as a separate person, and Queen Elizabeth as is and has been for centuries, one person being a joint monarch of a United Kingdom. I doubt that there will be any Act to create a separate Monarchy for Scotland. There will (presumably) be a Scottish constitution which will be the legal foundation for the Scottish state and the Scottish throne. Scotland and England were distinct kingdoms sharing a common monarchy between 1603 and 1707; the were not at that time a “United Kingdom”. Great Britain/the UK and Hanove shared a monarch from 1714 until 1837; they were not a united kingdom. The Irish Free State (head of state: George V) was not considered to form a united kingdom with the UK. What makes a united kingdom is the fact that it is united, not the fact that it shares a monarch with another state. If Scotland leaves the United Kingdom and we then have two sovereign states, Scotland and rump-UK, both of which have the same person as monarch, they will not be a united kingdom. They will be two kingdoms. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-some-people-enjoying-the-possible-break-up-of-the-uk/685820/371 "2014-05-08T11:13:39Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > There will (presumably) be a Scottish constitution which will be the legal foundation for the Scottish state and the Scottish throne. Scotland and England were distinct kingdoms sharing a common monarchy between 1603 and 1707; the were not at that time a “United Kingdom”. Great Britain/the UK and Hanove shared a monarch from 1714 until 1837; they were not a united kingdom. The Irish Free State (head of state: George V) was not considered to form a united kingdom with the UK. > > What makes a united kingdom is the fact that it is united, not the fact that it shares a monarch with another state. If Scotland leaves the United Kingdom and we then have two sovereign states, Scotland and rump-UK, both of which have the same person as monarch, they will not be a united kingdom. They will be two kingdoms. QEII is already the successor to the Scottish descendancy as she is to the English one. When the monarch was created sovereign of the dominions previously it was necessary to have legislation passed in Westminster to authorise this. That will be neither necessary nor correct if the UK splits into two nation states. It will be one Kingdom with two political entities- maybe like Hanover and Britain in the Georgian era. Any suggestion that Westminster could legislate a change to QEII’s position wrt Scotland would be seen as colonialism. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 11:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-some-people-enjoying-the-possible-break-up-of-the-uk/685820/372 "2014-05-08T11:15:16Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > At most, the term might become obsolete as an adjective pointing to a political entity, since there will no longer be a political entity including all parts of Britain. But if you see Britain as a cultural or national entity as well as a political entity, then obviously the term will survive as a referent for that cultural or national entity. In the future a Scot may or may not identify as British, just as in the present someone from Northern Ireland may or may not identify as British. That doesn’t mean that the term “British” will have no meaning. > > (Besides, it will almost certainly survive as the adjective pointing to the political entity comprising England, Wales and Northern Ireland. There will clearly be a need for such an adjective, and I can’t think of anything which is likely to supplant “British” in that role.) Let me run past you the idea of the British, Scottish and Irish Lions! ---
**Author:** ![ron2001](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecd19e/32.png) [@ron2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ron2001)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-some-people-enjoying-the-possible-break-up-of-the-uk/685820/373 "2014-05-08T15:47:30Z")
**uk breakup. its not gonna happen.** ---
**Author:** ![PaulParkhead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@PaulParkhead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PaulParkhead)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-some-people-enjoying-the-possible-break-up-of-the-uk/685820/374 "2014-05-08T15:52:14Z")
> [@ron2001](#): > > **uk breakup. its not gonna happen.** Thanks for letting us know. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-some-people-enjoying-the-possible-break-up-of-the-uk/685820/375 "2014-05-08T15:53:45Z")
> [@ron2001](#): > > **uk breakup. its not gonna happen.** The polls are pretty damned close and moving towards a Yes vote; the feeling up here is that it may well happen. The latest analysis split groups up into definities, maybes and possible for each side and although the no vote was slightly ahead, the possibles and maybes for the Yes vote were markedly in the majority! ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-some-people-enjoying-the-possible-break-up-of-the-uk/685820/376 "2014-05-08T18:41:35Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > The polls are pretty damned close and moving towards a Yes vote; the feeling up here is that it may well happen. > > The latest analysis split groups up into definities, maybes and possible for each side and although the no vote was slightly ahead, the possibles and maybes for the Yes vote were markedly in the majority! Do you have any cites for this assertion? Considering you have been pro-SNP, and there have been insinuations in this thread that being pro-Unionist is something to be scorned at, I wouldn’t at all be surprised if there was some duplicity in some of the voters outwardly declaring their intentions to vote yes, whilst secretly voting no. > [@](#): > > QEII is already the successor to the Scottish descendancy as she is to the English one. When the monarch was created sovereign of the dominions previously it was necessary to have legislation passed in Westminster to authorise this. That will be neither necessary nor correct if the UK splits into two nation states. It will be one Kingdom with two political entities- maybe like Hanover and Britain in the Georgian era. Any suggestion that Westminster could legislate a change to QEII’s position wrt Scotland would be seen as colonialism. So by your definition, the UK and Canada are one Kingdom. > [@](#): > > Let me run past you the idea of the British, Scottish and Irish Lions! It’s a terrible idea. ---
**Author:** ![filmstar-en](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/50afbb/32.png) [@filmstar-en](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/filmstar-en)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-some-people-enjoying-the-possible-break-up-of-the-uk/685820/377 "2014-05-08T18:56:23Z")
The debate has yet to turn to consider the many questions that are either unanswered or addressed by dubious assumptions from the SNP. At the moment it is at the superficial stage of…hands up for independence if you like being Scottish! Before September, I am expecting a very clear statement about how much it will cost and who will pay for it. That will concentrate peoples attention on both sides of border.:dubious: ---
**Author:** ![ron2001](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecd19e/32.png) [@ron2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ron2001)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-some-people-enjoying-the-possible-break-up-of-the-uk/685820/378 "2014-05-08T20:00:34Z")
[http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-poll-yes-on-brink-of-victory-1-3382125](http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-poll-yes-on-brink-of-victory-1-3382125) “A landmark ICM survey for today’s Scotland on Sunday reveals a decline in the No vote from 46 per cent to 42 per cent over the past month. Over the same period, the Yes vote has remained steady at 39 per cent, resulting in a significant tightening of the gap between the two sides. \*\* When the 19 per cent “don’t knows”\*\* are excluded from the equation, the No vote stands at 52 per cent, with 48 per cent in favour of Scotland going it alone. This is the highest level of Yes support to be recorded by an independently commissioned opinion poll.” thats a lot of dont knows! i reckon they will vote no on the day. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2014, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-some-people-enjoying-the-possible-break-up-of-the-uk/685820/379 "2014-05-09T01:45:13Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > QEII is already the successor to the Scottish descendancy as she is to the English one. There are not separate Scottish and English “descendancies”. There is just the crown of the United Kingdom. > [@Pjen](#): > > When the monarch was created sovereign of the dominions previously it was necessary to have legislation passed in Westminster to authorise this. No, it wasn’t. Where is the legislation which, e.g., authorises the UK monarch to be created sovereign of New Zealand? > [@Pjen](#): > > That will be neither necessary nor correct if the UK splits into two nation states. It will be one Kingdom with two political entities- maybe like Hanover and Britain in the Georgian era. Hanover and Britain were not “one Kingdom with two political entities”. They were the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Electorate (later Kingdom) of Hanover. There was never a “Kingdom of Hanover and Great Britain”, any more than there was a “Kingdom of Scotland and England” between 1603 and 1707, or than there is now a “Kingdom of the UK, Canada, Australian, New Zealand . . .” today. > [@Pjen](#): > > Any suggestion that Westminster could legislate a change to QEII’s position wrt Scotland would be seen as colonialism. An independent Scotland wishing to retain the UK Queen as its own head of state would presumably become a Commonwealth realm. Changes to the successsion law would only be passed by the UK Parliament with the assent of the Parliament of Scotland, in the same way that at present they are only passed with the assent of the Parliaments of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2014, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-some-people-enjoying-the-possible-break-up-of-the-uk/685820/380 "2014-05-09T01:48:33Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > Let me run past you the idea of the British, Scottish and Irish Lions! That makes my point, though. Just as at present “British” can refer either to the island of Great Britain or to the (somewhat larger) political entity of the United Kindgom, so in the hypothetical future “British” could refer either to the island of Great Britain or to the (somewhat smaller) political entity of the UK. In “British and Irish Lions” the reference is plainly the geographical one. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-some-people-enjoying-the-possible-break-up-of-the-uk/685820.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-some-people-enjoying-the-possible-break-up-of-the-uk/685820.md?page=20)