It's worth noting that "Great Britain" is very specifically the name of a geographical land mass -- an island off the coast of Europe that currently includes England, Wales, and Scotland.
In political terms it doesn't include NI ... or the Isle of Man, the Isle of Wight, and the Channel Islands.
(Also, in event of Scottish independence, using "GB" for the nationality would cause confusion because post-independence there'd be two separate nations on the GB land mass. See also [minor] confusion over "Ireland".)
Jesus christ, just when I thought I understood what all the convoluted UK/GB/etc names meant, now I discover I need to add "Crown Dependencies" to the list? That turn out to be neither part of the UK nor British Overseas Territories?
I swear they're just messing with us. Who comes up with these things...
I assumed this link would have been one of the top comments! All the other links in this thread combined don't shed light on the topic nearly as well as CGP Grey's video.
Indeed, but someone from NI can also join the Irish Olympic team. I guess the use of GB rather than UK is a way of addressing that sensitive question by not including NI as default in one team.
Also Football and Rugby. In general the sporting associations have a conditionally Unified Ireland policy, where it's really flexible which countries an athlete can compete for.
Northern Ireland has its own Football team, though I guess anyone who was born in NI has the right to be an RoI citizen they could choose to play for RoI instead. There is only a single Irish Rugby team though.
As someone from Northern Ireland who is often frustrated by British companies who don't ship to or provide services to this side of the sea, I think having this clearly indicated by a .gb TLD would be great.
British companies often charge extra to ship to the "Highlands and Islands", meaning northern Scotland (one of the most sparsely populated areas in Europe.)
I am surprised by this; Does the Royal Mail charge more? Like, significantly so? USPS charges more for shipping cross-country, certainly, but I consider their rates[1] pretty fair for the distance involved.
[1] https://pe.usps.com/text/dmm300/Notice123.htm#_c052 - For clarity, Zone 7 is cross-country for the most part, Zone 8 is mostly "Non-contiguous" (Alaska and Hawaii), and zone 9 is "Foreign but US Sovereignty" (Military bases, Embassies, Minor Outlying Islands). The maximum zone by distance in the UK would be Zone 4 - (Almost) All points within the British Isles are < 600 miles from each other.
UPS definitely charges different rates for different areas (and even the USPS does somewhat once you get to parcels) but most companies hide this from the buyer to make things simple (even so far as dropping to "free shipping").
Smaller companies often don't want to take a hit on the non-contiguous - but depending on what you're buying the places that DO charge shipping may actually be the cheapest overall.
The fun really comes when you have places in the USA that the post office doesn't even deliver to (in very VERY rural areas, every address is actually a PO Box; you have to drive into town to get the mail and that can be many, many miles). Often UPS and FedEx will think they can deliver, and then determine they can't. Fun times.
Alaska is continental but not continuous. Just imagine living in Porto Rico or any of the other random us protectorates that have no legal voting authority.
This is essentially down to the mainland forgetting that Northern Ireland existed until Brexit forced the NI border issue to prominence, isn't it?
The UK is to a great extent a set of special cases that have accreted from the feudal era. No wonder we invented Mornington Crescent.
All of the compatibility issues and awkwardnesses that derive from this get glossed over as much as possible, but are starting to force their way to the surface as the power and competence vaccuum in the center loses its grip.
The inclusion of Ireland in the British Isles is now contentious. We're not blowing each other up over it but it is, at least unofficially, not the position of either side any more.
I never thought a geographical term would be that contentious. To me, it sounds similar to objecting to the continent(s) known as "the Americas" simply because the USA is often known world-wide as just "America".
I find it annoying that any time you prepare for the test or read official textbook, such diagrams are never provided. Its alsways dome super spesific textual information
England and Wales share a legal system that is distinct from the one in Scotland and NI, which is the only thing I could think would explain that. Wales didn’t have its own parliament until 1998 and was entirely governed by London.
Wasn't Wales annexed by force into England while Scotland joined with England as an act of desperation following an amazingly incompetent attempt at setting up a colony?
Well there were two joinings. In the first one the Scottish King (James VI) took over the English throne after Elizabeth I died.
King James then began to try to create a unified state, merging first the churches. Of course there was then that little Cromwell bustup, but after that James VII of Scotland was on the throne and causing religious grief, his daughter and her Dutch husband then took over.
The United Kingdom also allows some regions to issue bank notes that are considered currency but not legal tender (i.e. then can be refused for payment of a debt in favour of currency issued by the Bank of England).
The reasoning is that UK is still not actually correct (though more correct) because the Olympic committee also oversees places like the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and so on which are not technically part of the UK.
Then it seems they keep it because of tradition and because the country code is GBR.
That's contentious. Technically the full name is the "Great Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic Team". Broadly the answer is "branding" and there isn't a strong enough push to change it.
I think one of the parents of the child has to be a UK or Ireland citizen. For example, German parents resident in and having a child in Northern Ireland, the child is only a UK citizen (and perhaps German? I don't know that part of it)
UK nationality law is exceptionally complex (probably the most complex in the world). Irish nationality law is less complex but inherited a lot of warts from the UK
In general if you’re born in NI and your parents are settled (that is they have permanent residency or are EU citizens with derived status) or are UK/IE citizens you are both British and Irish.
If one of your parents is NI born, it entitles you to have both UK (by descent) and Irish (by Good Friday) citizenship. Couple this with being born in the US, and my kids have 3 citizenships from birth.
British police and military were killing Irish people in the north around 30 years ago. The north is still under British occupation. When that ends and the island is re-unified, we can start saying that colonisation is being addressed.
> When that ends and the island is re-unified, we can start saying that colonisation is being addressed.
I objected to your use of the word 'colony' as it does not describe Northern Ireland. The social injustices you are referencing, and there have been many, do not make that word any more appropriate.
There is already a framework affirmed by the voters of both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland that the a plebiscite on unification can be held. There is no occupation, and your language does nothing constructive.
It is also incorrect to say 're-unified' as there never was an all island Irish state.
> British police and military were killing Irish people in the north around 30 years ago.
Technically most of the residents of NI were British citizens at the time this was happening.
Additionally, it wasn't just the British engaging in violence, there were at least three sides (nationalist/loyalist/government).
> The north is still under British occupation
I'm pretty sure that I could find a lot of people (almost certainly a majority) of NI residents who'd disagree with this statement.
> When that ends and the island is re-unified,
I hope (as someone from the Republic) that this happens, but we'll need a bunch of planning and time to make sure this doesn't turn out like Brexit (a close result leading to lots of problems over the following few years).
>> killing Irish people in the north around 30 years ago.
> residents of NI were British citizens at the time
That's how it works for every independence movement - a smaller entity asserts it's right to exist outside the boundary of a larger one. Fighting smaller entity is self-harm by the larger entity.
Look at the Chechen war in Russia, it was the same.
Ah no, the Irish situation is very very different.
For a start, the Ulster Protestants were the majority in NI until this year (100 years after partition).
And while I (as an Irish person) would love to see a united Ireland, I completely condemn the violence that was used to attempt it.
Again, I understand why it happened, but 3.5k deaths over 30 years was not an acceptable price to get to the negotiation table (essentially repeating a deal that was shot down by the Unionists in 1972).
And that's absolutely fine, I'll cheer them on in the reunification process when that time comes. But at the moment they don't, and it's silly to suggest that it's still a colony until then.
I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything. I'd like the British state to stop forcing NI to be part of the UK. What the people of NI then choose to do is up to them.
The Good Friday Agreement, which the UK is party to, explicitly gives Northern Ireland the right to leave the UK if the majority of people there want to.
NI is no more a colony than the US or Australia are today.
Personally I'm all about self-determination. If the people of NI want to return the land to Eire, then nobody should stand in their way. But that doesn't seem to be the case right now, even though support for reunification has been increasing in recent years.
NI was explicitly created as a hack to an all-Ireland independence referendum at the start of 20th century. It was a landslide victory for a one-Ireland state and the UK created this never-seen-before entity as a response.
I'm not even Irish and certainly have no skin in this game but what the UK did to Ireland over the centuries is disgraceful, and it clearly is struggling to come to terms with it.
As a recent tourist, NI seemed far less developed than the Republic of Ireland to me, as if everyone there had moved to England for jobs and now that region only survives thanks to life support from London.
Much of the infrastructure there reminded me more of post-communist Eastern European countries than western Europe, but then so do many parts of England (no offense).
I wonder if NI wouldn't be better off part of the Republic and the EU, now with Brexit and everything?
As someone who grew up and lives in NI, I'm suspicious that the awful state of the place is because the UK knows NI will rejoin Ireland in the nearish future, so why would they invest in infrastructure here?
It used to be the case that the roads would get noticeably worse as you crossed the border into the republic, now the situation is reversed.
>I'm suspicious that the awful state of the place is because the UK knows NI will rejoin Ireland in the nearish future, so why would they invest in infrastructure here?
NI receives a disproportionately large amount of money from the UK gov compared to other UK nations.
And that money still isn't enough, because NI is still suffering the effects of the troubles and a governance situation which is not fit for purpose. Everything here is in a state of disrepair, the NHS isn't functioning, the far-right Christian-fundamentalist party which is the second biggest party refuses to do anything for reasons that exist only in their own heads, etc. etc.
The place needs to be actively developed, not repeatedly patched up and sent on its way to hobble along.
I agree with you, I'm just pointing out that the lack of investment in infrastructure isn't a NI-specific issue; rather it's part of central gov policy for the whole of the UK. And has been for decades. Every part of the UK is crumbling through lack of investment.
NI is a little better-off than much of England in that regard, outside of Tory towns and villages. My home town never recovered after Thatcher.
Probably not, in the sense that it's a backwater anyway - but at least it's currently a backwater enjoying significant subsidies from the UK government, money they likely wouldn't get from Dublin.
Unification will happen when the advantage of receiving such money will be clearly be offset by the disadvantage of having a broken political system (NI regional government is boycotted by unionists, while the national government is boycotted by republicans). As money reduces further and further while annoyances get bigger and bigger (because of an entrenched "England-first" government pursuing policies like Brexit), that threshold gets closer and closer.
>enjoying significant subsidies from the UK government
Those subsidies don't seem to be enough to save it when the infrastructure is crumbling and everyone is moving abroad for jobs. Also, many countries don't need subsidies, they need opportunities. Subsidies are like paying a crackehead to buy more drugs instead of getting him a home, warm meal, a shower and schooling for job applications.
>money they likely wouldn't get from Dublin
They would get it from the EU then, and probably a lot more, as the UK gov is now struggling financially to stay solvent. The EU can very generous if you can play the game right. Just look at Poland 20 years ago and Poland today, the difference EU funds and the EU open market made, is night and day. It has also benefiter the Republic of Ireland. I doubt they would have been in the same state today without EU membership. For all its faults, the EU has been a force for good many times. Another English speaking region joining the EU could be a mutual benefit.
> NI was explicitly created as a hack to an all-Ireland independence referendum at the start of 20th century. It was a landslide victory for a one-Ireland state and the UK created this never-seen-before entity as a response.
The UK government didn't have a lot of choice, the Ulster Protestants would almost certainly have fought a civil war if the full island was granted domininion status.
The boundary commission was problematic, but the real issue post partition was the removal of PR by the NI government. I think that if the ballot box hadn't essentially been stacked against Catholics we might not have seen the Troubles.
The US and Australia don't have the British military as the ultimate enforcer of state power. They each have their own local armies, accepted as legitimate by Britain. Northern Ireland's army was never accepted as legitimate by the British state, they were even fought directly for decades.
Northern Ireland is not a colony according to the common and widely understood meaning of the word colony (or in the opinion of the UN). If you make up your own definition based on "local armies" (whatever relevance or meaning that has, not sure)... then yes you can personally call anything anything you like... but it has no meaning to the rest of us and doesn't really make any sense.
The only reason for that is NI never voted/fought for secession from the UK - just relatively small groups without popular support in NI, but with the support of Ireland.
Actually, they did, back when Ireland as a whole voted for independence. That that particular part of the country may have chosen to remain does not, under democratic rules, allow for it to be separated from the main country, much like Scotland and Wales could not have argue to remain in the EU because their respective populations were overwhelmingly in favour of remain.
And to be quite frank, you are probably thinking of the Provisional IRA when you put legitimacy in quotes, where as this was the original IRA, who basically have nothing in common with the Provos (as they were called when I were a lad) except the name.
When Ireland voted for independence, it was officially part of the UK. The UK as a whole would have voted against independence for Ireland. Does that mean under democratic rules Ireland was not allowed for it to be separated from the main country?
We'd be better off asking why unionist don't want to join rather than telling them they have no choice.
I don't think anyone is telling them that: in fact their concerns are absurdly well catered for, though you wouldn't know it listening to the constant complaints.
We can split hairs about what is and is not democratic until the end of time, but the debate takes place in a historical vacuum: the creation of Northern Ireland was a response to a very specific set of circumstances, and I don't think yak-shaving about democratic niceties casts any light.
It is moot anyway, because there is no prospect of changing Northern Ireland's status without democratic sanction. Which vote of course takes place at the pleasure of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
It is not quite at the pleasure of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It is defined in law that if there are grounds to believe it would pass they would be required to hold a border poll. This could be decided in court, as in if say opinion polling was at 70% and nationalist parts were winning 70% of the votes, and the Secretary of State refused to hold the poll. They could be brought to court and a judge could rule the secretary has no grounds to refuse.
The levels of support for the small groups that fought primarily against small groups on the other side were never really gauged. However the political successors to the only one of those groups that really counted is currently the largest party in Northern Ireland.
The Brits left split polities in quite a few places as they decolonized. Almost as if it was policy.
I look forward to the official renaming to the "United Kingdom of Giga Byte and Northern Ireland" and then we can all fight over if it should have been Gibi Byte.
It used to be the case that there is only a single UK government.
The local governments (Scotland, Wales, NI) are formed no more than ~20 years ago, and are in charge of local affairs such as healthcare and education.
There is never an England local government, but effectively the UK government only have to deal with England with regards to local affairs.
It's not particularly independent, but it is the last of the unreformed medieval municipal corporations. In earlier times every borough/city corporation was chartered ad hoc and often had completely undemocratic rules for membership (e.g. selection by the outgoing members, maintaining a self-selected oligarchy, or election by an extremely restricted franchise). There was a process from the Municipal Corporations Act 1835[0] onwards where the old order was reformed into a more modern (more uniform and more democratic) county/district/borough/city councils system. We eventually ended up with the local authorities we have today.
Except for the City of London. Here, a combination of the Victorian power of the Corporation, coupled with the tiny resident population of the City (and a consequent desire by central governments to leave elections in the effective hands of the companies who employ people in the City rather than those who live there) have left a body allowed to take its own direction. Along with the Council of the Isles of Scilly (weird because Scilly is far too small to justify its own principal authority, but too far from Cornwall to be conveniently governed by it) it is one of only two really sui generis principal local authorities in England.
That's a great explanation, but it's also worth adding that the City of London was the only city mentioned[0] in Magna Carta, which stated:
"the City of London shall have all its ancient liberties by land as well as by water"
These liberties being "ancient" even in 1215 AD means they date back to "time immemorial"[1] (that is, before 1189 AD) and thus their exact nature is not known. As such, replacing the legal basis for the City would likely have contravened or at least complicated the interpretation of that foundational document.
Yes - the traditional liberties of the City are long-standing and fought for. I'm not sure that being mentioned by name in Magna Carta was reason enough to leave it unreformed. The Cinque Ports have been reduced to essentially ceremonial status despite their mention (and the large majority of Magna Carta has simply been repealed over the years[0] - it's not a constitutional document in the sense that it's ever been entrenched).
No, that's not true or fair. The gov.uk contains stuff for all countries not just England. Although it may contain stuff for England that does not have a place elsewhere.
The fact England doesn't have a devolved government is insanity to me, but people were really pissed at Blair when it came time to vote on it... so here we are.
But really - we like to think there's a sensible definition of what a country is. There isn't. What makes Scotland a country and not Montana?
I'm in Ireland, the examples get even more convoluted. For some sports we field a team as a UN-recognised nation-state. For some sports we field a team as an island. If you're born on the island to parents who are citizens of the island, you can claim an Irish passport - whether or not you were born in the country of Ireland. Sometimes it's a geopolitical entity, sometimes it's a geographical entity, sometimes it's a political entity. Sometimes it's not even green.
Is the UK a nation? Is the US a nation? Is the Navajo Nation a nation? Is the UK a country? Is England a country? Is Malboro Country a country?
My passport says "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". But I'm not convinced Great Britain is a United Kingdom (England and Scotland legally are, Wales may be a principality depending on who and when you ask), and I'm not sure if Northern Ireland was ever a Kingdom (Ulster perhaps, otherwise it's not a kingdom, but the remains of a king's claims).
Nationhood is almost as convoluted as the modern take on gender. You can self-identify as anything you like if you have an army to back you up.
England, Scotland, Wales, and NI are called “countries” for historical and traditional reasons. They are not “countries” by any internationally applicable definition (if they were, then the states of the US, the provinces of Canada, etc. would all count as “countries” too by any such definition I can imagine).
Note that .cat is for the Catalan language, which is spoken in other places besides Catalonia, inside and outside of Spain. There is also .gal and .eus for the Galician and Basque (Euskara) languages as well.
