Talk:United Kingdom

Debt

Total UK government debt rose quickly from 44.4% of GDP in 2007 to 82.9% of GDP in 2011, then increased more slowly to 87.5% of GDP in 2015.[245][246]

This is factually incorrect. This is just the government's borrowing.

No. The last comment is incorrect. UK Government Debt did indeed increase from c 35% of GDP pre-crash to c 85% of GDP post-crash, at which level it has more or less stablised. Government Borrowing has fallen from c £145 billion per annum in 2010 (i.e. 10% of GDP) to c £60 billion per annum now (i.e. 3% of GDP). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.108.92.22 (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2017‎ (UTC)

External Debt: The comments re the UK's external debt are misleadingly one-sided and ignore the fact that the UK is also one of the world's largest creditors. Its "Net International Investment Position (the sum of its external borrowing and loans) is modestly negative and very much in the middle of the global rankings.

I agree with the above comments. This whole economic section seems determined to present a negative view of the UK economy. The UK's NET INVESTMENT POSITION (which is what really matters) is actually in credit. The fact that the country is both a major creditor and a major debtor reflects its large financial sector and is arguably a sign of strength rather than a sign of weakness. Also, whilst it is true that UK inequality has widened since the 1970s, the situation has stabilized since the late 1990s and has in fact improved since the 2008 crash. Thus, for almost a decade now, inequality in the UK has been narrowing, not widening as this article misleadingly suggests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.108.92.22 (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2017‎ (UTC)

For example, it owed 5,010 bn in pensions with no assets [unfunded] as of 2010.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171766_263808.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.83.28 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 5 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Scots rebellion was about British sovereignty, not Catholicism

The section in 'History' under "After the Acts of Union of 1707", should mention that the King George I, and the House of Hanover were German, and he barely spoke English, and that the Scottish uprising was not just about Protestantism, but that the House of Hanover were not thought of as British by almost anyone in Britain. The uprising had a lot to do with British sovereignty, not just Catholicism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.55.165 (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2017‎ (UTC)

Unitary sovereign state vs sovereign country

Let's call the UK what it is, a unitary sovereign state, and not do this mess of calling it a "sovereign country" with a Wikilink to the sovereign state page.

I suggest we focus on the real truth and not try to mislead readers of the English Wikipedia for political ends, such as Brexit or whatever else the agenda is of those Wikipedia editors who want the UK to be listed as a "sovereign country". I suggest the content "sovereign country" is replaced with "unitary sovereign state" - with the Wikilinks I've already added to my suggested new content (2 Wikilinks, one to the "Unitary state" page and the other to the "Sovereign state" page). This is also slightly more detail and informs the reader that the UK is a unitary state, and not a federation like the US, Germany, or Russia. I know Wikipedia is all about consensus, but when Wikipedia is being used for what appears to be political means, that's an area when criticisms of the site start. First past the post (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

This one keeps coming up. "sovereign country" is a non-term that keeps both camps happy, so please leave it alone. See Talk:United_Kingdom/Archive_30#Opening_sentence and many preceding entries. FYI, it has nothing to do with Brexit. BTW, I'm shortening your title to a title rather than a statement. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Sovereign country vs sovereign nation

I've replaced several instances of "country" with "nation" where appropriate,^[1] leaving the ones where "country" was appropriate and rewording a few to say something else (like "the UK"). The only one I missed that I would have changed is the one in the lead, which says the UK "is a sovereign country in western Europe." I don't wish to get into a protracted debate, but here in the UK we consider England, Scotland and Wales, etc. to be countries and the UK itself to be a nation (and conversely our nationality is designated British). I'd like to change "sovereign country" to "sovereign nation". Since the two words - country and nation - are actually synonyms this should not be a controversial edit, and has little to do with the conversation immediately above. I would have done the edit myself but I saw the note and came here out of courtesy. Cheers. nagualdesign 22:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I have rarely heard the UK referred to as a nation, nagualdesign. England, Scotland and Wales are nations. The UK is a multi-national state. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit disappointed that you've summarily reverted while a discussion is ongoing (the type of behaviour I associate with edit warriors), but I'll persevere. A couple of questions; first, do you live in the UK? and second, how many times in your entire life have you heard a British citizen refer to the UK as "a multi-national state", as opposed to "a country", "a nation" or "a kingdom", say? I realize that there are technical specifications related to these terms - one of the references even discusses the fact that England, Scotland and Wales are not "countries" per se. However, the vast majority of Britons do use the word country when describing the individual member states, as does the article in places, and for that reason many find the concept of a "country within a country" confusing. Per MOS:INTRO I think it would be better to put the pedantry to one side and stick to using common terms (and I say this as a hardened pedant). nagualdesign 22:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

On the revert point, you made a bold edit and I reverted it once, so this is not edit warring but actually what is suggested by WP:BRD. On the substantive point, I do live in the UK, I haven't heard many ordinary people use the term "multi-national state", but then I haven't heard many describe the UK as a nation either. Most would say country or state. However, on Wikipedia we go by what reliable sources say about a subject. See this and this, for example. If you have reliable sources for the UK being considered a nation, then please do present them here. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately there was an edit conflict and I've just lost a substantial response, so I'm just going to be succinct instead. Per WP:BRD, we were already at the D part, so your R was somewhat provocative, even if you were entitled to one revert. Causing a car crash because you had right of way still results in a car crash.

I see that you have now also visited Great Britain and reverted my edit there. The reason I came here to discuss things in the first place is because of the note within the article that states, "This phrase "sovereign country" has been the subject of edit warring in the past. It must not be changed without prior discussion and consensus. March 2017". I also left a note in my edit summary, "Please do not revert. I'll post something on the talk page..." I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that you are probably responsible in large part for any edit warring, and that it might be more collegial to meet courtesy with courtesy. You do not WP:OWN these articles and there is no WP:RUSH to keep the articles as you would wish them to be.

I'll move on to Lin4671... nagualdesign 23:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in any previous edit warring here, nagualdesign. Also, just because you explained your edit here (i.e. started the discussion), does not mean that your bold edit shouldn't be reverted. You are the one who needs consensus to change the existing wording. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nagualdesign:If there was an edit conflict, why didn't you just copied and pasted from the edit code whatever you had written before? Thinker78 (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I highlighted the text and pressed CTRL+C but evidently something went awry. After refreshing the page and attempting to paste from the clipboard something else entirely appeared. Shit happens. nagualdesign 01:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

.....I also live in the UK. Describing the UK as a 'nation' would be viewed as pushing a political opinion against the idea that the four nations of the UK are England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Of course you will find some sources describing the UK in this way precisely because those sources are trying to push that agenda.Lin4671 (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

With respect, my suggestion has nothing to do with pushing political opinion. It's about language, and more specifically attempting to use common language, per guidelines. As I'm sure you're aware, country and nation are synonyms, but most English people would say that England is a country. As for finding reputable sources, Larry tells me I need to go and find them then you tell me that I'll probably be able to find them, but they won't be acceptable. Do you see a problem here?

Please note that per WP:AGF it's poor form to accuse another editor of trying to push their political opinion. I might equally accuse you of the same thing if I didn't find the very idea so ludicrous. We're talking about synonyms here, not arguing over Brexit!

I'm going to leave it there as I can see I'm not going to get anywhere with the two of you. If anybody else reads this in the future and would like to discuss things dispassionately (where we actually consider each other's position rather than just asserting our own) feel free to ping me. Regards, nagualdesign 23:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nagualdesign: I don't live in the UK nor hold the British nationality, so I'm kind of neutral to the debate from a political perspective. I can see some weight in the argument that "country" is a better fit to describe the UK than "nation", because of reliable sources usage, but if you have contrary information please bring it about. Thinker78 (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I suspect I would be wasting my time. As Lin4671 stated, there will be no shortage of sources describing Britain as a nation, but they are unlikely to satisfy as they will be deemed as trying to push some sort of political agenda. Whereas the Grauniad article that Larry linked to (which, incidentally, also states that "there is no such place as Britain") is nothing of the sort, right? Never mind. nagualdesign 01:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I linked to the Marquand article just because it was amongst the first results on Google when I looked for sources, and because he is a well-known academic. You might be right to dismiss the source as political, but take a look at the Google Books results too. I'm sure that there are sources describing the UK as a nation, but there's a question of quantity and quality as compared with those that consider the constituent parts of the UK to be nations. I suspect that part of the disagreement here stems from slightly different understandings of the term "nation". I tend to think of the academic definition, which is that a nation is a group sharing (a belief in) common descent, history, culture and language. By that definition, you can see why England, Wales and Scotland (Northern Ireland is more complicated) are often described as nations, rather than the UK. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Most people in England refer to the UK as a country. My country, our country, the problem with this country, to fight for this country, immigrants coming to this country, moving to another country, our country's people, schools, currency - that's how people speak. But no one uses the term "sovereign country." What about the term sovereign state? TFD (talk) 09:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The UK is very unusual - perhaps unique - in that it is a country made up of other countries. The other countries yielded their sovereignty when the UK was formed, so Scotland for example is no longer a sovereign country, but they are still countries. Indeed the fact that an agreed referendum was held in 2014 to see whether Scotland wished to take its sovereignty back, illustrates the different nature of the UK - few other countries in the world would agree to a referendum in one part of the state to allow a vote on independence. Bottom line, the term 'country' and 'nation' are not synonyms when used in the context of the UK. Lin4671 (talk) 11:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The biggest problem in this discussion is that the terms "state", "country" and "nation" are employed according to the writer's POV. Last year I posted the following to try and clear up the linguistic mess and stop the ceaseless warring:

I've long since given up on this one. It's actually quite straight forward: a Nation can be used for the geo-political entity, but is based upon a tribal (in a very general sense) cohesion. The "tribe" of Mexicans live in Mexico, so Mexico can sensibly be defined as a nation. Consider though the tribe of the Apache, the Apache Nation does not define a sovereign area. A state is ultimately derived from the court of a monarch, and as such is a geopolitical area. Since petty kingdoms, principalities and dukedoms may be part of larger kingdoms or areas, there needs to be a distinguishing term for the top level - a sovereign state. A country is an area of land which in some usages (the country of France) may be co-terminate with a sovereign state, but in other cases (the north country) is not.

In the case of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the UK is a sovereign state. Within the state are the countries of England and Scotland. The principality of Wales and the Province of Northern Ireland may also be considered countries according to the speaker's viewpoint. The confusion occurs, I think, due to the history of the USA. The original states where severally founded as separate self-governing entities - so state is an appropriate term. When they united they formed the United States, which is a sovereign state. The US is a country both as a definable area of land and in the colloquial shorthand of country = sovereign state. In the case of the US it is useful to keep the country (sovereign state) of the US distinguished from the constituent states. Unfortunately people then take this model and try to apply it to the older UK.

So to re-emphasise:

• A nation is a group of people, and by extension the territory they occupy.
• A state is a geopolitical entity based on administration.
• A country is a defined tract of land.

Now whatever the rights and wrongs let's set the wording back to the agreed terms and leave them alone. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Just for the record, from reference material from the EU and elsewhere Wales is considered a country as is Northern Ireland (although that has other references). There is no legal basis to the idea that Wales is a 'principality' as you should know by now ... ----Snowded ^TALK 15:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with what Martin of Sheffield has written here, so long as the amendment about "principality" suggested by Snowded is made (I also feel a little uncomfortable at Northern Ireland being described as a "province", and would much rather they were all just referred to as "countries", but I'll let that pass.) Many years ago, I initiated an exercise where a very large and as extensive a table as possible was constructed where as many reliable sources that described the constituent countries of the UK in various ways were listed. It formed part of an article dealing with naming conventions for the UK. I then was absent from wikipedia for a while (a number of years), and in that time, it disappeared. I have no idea why it disappeared as I thought it was and still would be an excellent resource that could easily be justified as a wikipedia article, but I suspect there may have been some move to allow for endless controversies by some people, who I hope are no longer with us. I wish this resource could be resurrected and made into an article again. It would certainly help to reduce to a minimal level this kind of argument here we see again and again, usually involving new editors (I see there are new ones involved here), who seem to have neither the knowledge nor memory of this massive exercise we did in the past. I suggest we deal with this briefly, as I am sure us experienced editors are tired of this, not because we are resistant to change or we "own" the article as some have alleged in the past, but because we have read most of it before and we are aware of the vast body of reliable sources that suggest a consensus view which is what has been the stable version on this article and related ones for years. Could we not revive this large table and update it a bit to help reduce these repetitive discussions a bit?  DDStretch  (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

"Principality" and "Province" are historic terms, I mentioned that they might be considered as countries and I am also a little uncomfortable with the old terms. With devolution there is really no distinction beyond history. Just don't get the EU involved though, certainly not at the moment! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok. What about the idea of reviving that old large table that listed reliable sources for each type of way of calling the different bits of the UK? I really think it could be a good idea.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea to me. Can you not do a search for it, if you know roughly when it was and what your username was at the time (if different from now)? nagualdesign 18:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

United Kingdom is a country. England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland are constituent countries

Just use country for the United Kingdom & constituent countries for England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland. Alas, if only ya'll would get behind that terminology :( GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

As I said, above, we need to see what reliable sources say about the term "constituent country", otherwise it would be a case of being original research, which wikipedia, like it or not, frowns upon in a great way as there is no concept of expertise within the organisation...  DDStretch  (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

GoodDay, we're not far from that: the United Kingdom is a sovereign country; England, Scotland and Wales are non-sovereign countries. All five are "countries". Some don't consider the UK to be a "country", some don't consider it's constituents to be "countries", but the vast majority of sources describe all five as being "countries".

Every country is "constituent" of something. You could say the United Kingdom is a "constituent country of the European Union". While it's not an inaccurate term, there's not really any evidence it has a specific meaning in relation to "countries within countries".

All we're doing here is combining adjectives with nouns. Some like to overcomplicate it and try to make out these phrases have to specific defined meaning when often they don't. Of course, "sovereign" has a specific meaning, so it's a good disambiguator. "constituent", not so much. And those who want to change "sovereign country" to "sovereign state" are clearly just pushing their own agenda. Fortunately the vast majority of editors here are clear-headed.

You can see the rational for why the article Constituent country was deleted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constituent country. This term has very much been propagated by a small number of Wikipedia editors, it has never been defined in any specific sense by reliable sources.

Rob984 (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The deleted article-in-question, was made into a re-direct to a section that includes E/S/W/NI. Until folks here adopt my proposal? this 'what do we call the UK' question, will continue to be brought up by editors. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, it does no harm in being directed to a disambiguation page. It has no incoming links any longer, I made sure to remove them all. Plastering a made up phrase across Wikipedia is not going to answer any question. Right now the term "sovereign country" here has overwhelming consensus. If editors with certain POVs could stop whining about it all the time, that would be great. Rob984 (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not proposing that constituent country be plastered all over Wikipedia. Anyways, you (plural) have my proposal. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Good. The vast majority of sources describe Scotland, England as countries and not 'constituent countries' so your proposal is a non-starter. Lin4671 (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

GoodDay as you well know this has been done to death several hundred times including a full review of sources. To continue to bring it up when you are fully aware of the situation (and it was one of the factors in your prior block from editing) is disruptive. Please just leave it ----Snowded ^TALK 05:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141224045523/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_346117.xml to http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_346117.xml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.llrx.com/features/uk2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130112222226/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmintdev/220/22007.htm to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmintdev/220/22007.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090406224510/http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/govpubs/for/british.htm to http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/govpubs/for/british.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Request of comment

An editor has requested comments from other editors for a discussion about Charles, Prince of Wales in its talk page, under "RFC: What should be in the article lead, concerning the royal succession?" Feel free to go there and join the discussion. Thinker78 (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Treaty of Union 1706 was the most important step!!!

I just added Treaty of Union as a step in the formation of the UK and it has been reverted with a comment 'not significant for that list'. Incredible! If there had been no Treaty of Union, there would have been no Acts of Union the next year so the state formed on 1 may 1707 would not have been formed! Remember, the Acts of Union were passed to ratify and put into effect what was agreed in the Treaty of union. So how on earth can anyone argue that the Treaty of union is 'not significant'? I await a reply with interest. Lin4671 (talk) 12:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Lin4671, thanks for the question. I noticed the edit and I agree that the Treaty of Union is significant in UK history, but was the other editor trying to avoid redundancy by not having both in the list? If I'm correct (and forgive my limited knowledge of British history) the Acts of Union ratified and placed into effect the Treaty of Union. Should we try to avoid being redundant? Not sure, just want to pose the question. (And I might agree that his edit summary wasn't the best way to summarize the edit.) Regards, Foreignshore (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful comment - a plausible explanation. Unfortunately I don't know what the editor was thinking as he/she hasn't bothered to post a comment in response to me bringing the issue to the talk page at his/her suggestion. Lin4671 (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

One or the other but not both ----Snowded ^TALK 20:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Snowded. I think it makes more sense to list the Treaty of Union as the Acts of Union were merely ratifying the Treaty. Lin4671 (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm OK with that, makes more sense ----Snowded ^TALK 05:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I think the most important date is when the the countries were united, not when an agreement was made or for that matter the date the English legislation received royal assent. So 1st May 1707 is the most important date. TFD (talk) 05:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

When did the restored Kingdom of England & the restored Kingdom of Scotland cease to exist & the Kingdom of Great Britain come into existence? What ever the answer to that is? go with it. GoodDay (talk) 06:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Great Britain came into existence 1st May, 1707 when the crowns and parliaments of England and Scotland merged. TFD (talk) 10:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The key date is indeed 1 May 1707. The question is whether the treaty of Union or the Acts of Union were responsible for the event of that date happening. Both the Treaty of Union and the Acts of Union happened before 1 May - so which of the two should be associated with the 1 May.,.the Treaty of Union that led directly to it union happening or the Acts of Union that were merely the procedures by which both sovereign parliaments ratified the Treaty? I suggest that the Treaty of Union is key. Lin4671 (talk) 13:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it should stay as it is currently. the key date is the legislative acts of Union coming into force. Not the treaty of union. Dakka1 (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

UK/GB

Does anyone know why the international abbreviation for the UK, in for example Car identifications, is GB? I had problems with this 25 years ago whilst working in Europe. When I challenged the use of GB as an identifier for the United Kingdom I was trumped by a referral to the United Nations list of abbreviations.. Deepchris (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2017

The first sentence is wrong "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) and colloquially Great Britain (GB) or simply Britain, is a sovereign country in western Europe."

The UK is NOT a country but made up of countries. 77.97.67.239 (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The UK is a country. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130522110328/http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/press/news2005/scotlands-census-2001-gaelic-report.html to http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/press/news2005/scotlands-census-2001-gaelic-report.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)