Talk:British Overseas Territories/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

comments

Ireland was Britain's first colony and, thus, Northern Ireland is the oldest British Colony. The consitutional relationship of Northern Ireland with Great Britain is different than, for example, the constitutional relationship between Scotland and Britain. Although Britain claims that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, Britain does not claim that Northern Ireland is part of Britain. Any discussion of British Colonies should include Ireland and Northern Ireland.

Ireland was never a colony of Great Britain. Northern Ireland is British and part of the United Kingdom. Colonies are not integrated parts of sovereign states.YourPTR! 15:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This article was moved manually. To see earlier page history, check Overseas territory of the United Kingdom -- JFG 04:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

...I fixed that. CDC (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


Does anyone known if crown colonies are different than royal colonies? This is in reference to British holdings in North American in the 17th and 18th centuries. jengod 22:41, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

I've never heard the expression royal colonies. As I understand it, Crown colonies was the general name given to all colonies administered by the British government, such as the original six divisions of Australia, the various territories in the Caribbean, the original sub-divisions of South Africa, Singapore and elsewhere. Those who had not achieved independence were eventually redesignated 'dependent territories' under the Commonwealth. Agendum 00:26, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There's some kind of difference between a Crown Colony and a plain old Colony. The distinction comes up in the history of British Columbia. The Colony of Vancouver's Island was established in 1849, the Crown Colony of British Columbia was established on the mainland in 1858. The two were amalgamated in 1866 and shared the Crown Colony title until 1871, when the colony joined Canada. There's a legal difference of some kind; what the Governor's powers are, perhaps (both Colonies had very unorthodox political cultures because of the dual role of Hudson's Bay Company boss held by the Governor, and because of the Governor's peculiar way of getting things done, esp. on the mainland). Skookum1 21:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
A Colony is defined by the Colonial Laws Validity Act - '1. The Term "Colony" shall in this Act include all of Her Majesty 's Possessions abroad in which there shall exist a Legislature as hereinafter defined except the Channel Islands the Isle of Man and such Territories as may for the Time being be vested in Her Majesty under or by virtue of any Act of Parliament for the Government of India.' The Crown Colonies were colonies which did not possess legislatures and were ruled directly by the Crown through the Governor, although sometimes there was an appointed legislative council. Yet another reason why we need a historical article on colonies that does not redirect to British overseas territories. Alan 04:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, that definition is only valid for that Act, which was designed to regulate colonial legislation, so had to apply to colonies with legislatures. The Interpretation Act 1978, provides: ""Colony" means any part of Her Majesty's dominions outside the British Islands except-- (a) countries having fully responsible status within the Commonwealth; (b) territories for whose external relations a country other than the United Kingdom is responsible; (c) associated states; and where parts of such dominions are under both a central and a local legislature, all parts under the central legislature are deemed for the purposes of this definition to be one colony". The 1889 Interpretation Act read: "The expression "colony" shall mean any part of Her Majesty's dominions exclusive of the British Islands, and of British India, and where parts of such dominions are under both a central and a local legislature, all parts under the central legislature shall, for the purposes of this definition, be deemed to be one colony."
There are only three instances of the use of the expression Crown colony in UK legislation, only one of which is an Act of Parliament. The Federal Council of Australasia Act 1885 defines Colonies as "The colonies (including their respective dependencies) of Fiji, New Zealand, New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, and Western Australia, and the province of South Australia, and any other colonies that may hereafter be created in Australasia, or those of the said colonies in respect to which this Act is in operation" and Crown colony as "Any colony in which the control of public officers is retained by Her Majesty's Imperial Government". So that supports the idea that a distinction existed at that time, making Crown colonies a subset of Colonies. However, the two statutory instruments that use the expression Crown colony seem to use it as if it meant the same as colony. My opinion is that the expression Crown colony was not a precisely-defined term, e.g. one might say that in 1867 the Straits Settlements became a Crown colony as opposed to a 'colony' under the government of British India or (previously) of the East India Company. But if there is confusion on the subject, we may need to have separate pages. Andrew Yong 13:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree that Crown Colony was never a very precise definition and we do require separate pages. I have found no example of any of the Australasian colonies being described as Crown colonies in Australian, British or New Zealand legislation. The Colonial Laws Validity Act carries a lot of weight because it was an attenpt to regulate the confict of laws for the empire as a whole. Alan 17:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the Crown Colony page should be at most a disambiguation page, seeing as there is no precise definition and seeing as how most of the existing links do not have the more restrictive meaning in mind. Alternatively, it might be easier to provide an explanation in the existing page. Andrew Yong 22:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What exactly does list {Crowncolonies} here accomplish? --Jiang 20:40, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A consistent user interface within the topic, as I said in the summary. I thought that was the whole point behind them; otherwise we might as well replace them with categories. If you are researching British overseas territories, a consistent menu makes navigating easier. Also, I don't think aesthetics is a poor reason for keeping something at all. I'll turn the question around and ask how the template is detrimental to the page? (And, again, please don't flag disputed removals as minor). Rls 20:59, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)

The consistent user interface here only applies to the article components within the template. This means the template belongs at the individual crown colony articles. This article is on crown colonies in general and is not on a crown colony so it is in different class than, say, the article on British Indian Ocean Territory.

The template is detrimental to the page because it is out of place and useless. It accomplishes nothing so it is a waste of space. --Jiang 00:45, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The consistent user interface here only applies to the article components within the template
Er, no. The general page is linked to by the template as well.
The general article is clearly part of the topic. I find this structure useful for browsing purposes; clearly others do as well since there are several other pages in Wikipedia with this format: e.g. Communities, regions and provinces of Belgium and States and territories of Australia.
I propose replacing the template on the grounds of precedence and that at the very worst it is only a block at the bottom of the page that does not even need to be scrolled past if it is of no use to anyone. Rls 23:18, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)

Just because Belgium and Australia has it doesn't mean they're in the right. There is no such precendence. I would guess that most countries do not have such templates at the bottom of their articles. For example, political divisions of China has no template.

Although the general page is linked to by the template, the information contained within the template is already included in the article text. If you want to browse, you look at the list and browse from there. The template is only necessary elsewhere because it makes little sense to add a "list of crown colonies" at the bottom of each crown colony. Again, I don't see how this is in the same class as the individual crown colonies. --Jiang 23:27, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • It is still a precedent, even if there are conflicting examples. It shows that there is some disagreement on this issue, regardless of your assertions.
  • It is rather arrogant telling me how I should browse. I personally find it useful and others apparently do too.
  • The template is not necessary, but I am of the opinion it is helpful.
  • They are in the same topic, which I believe is the collection of what most readers of Wikipedia are interested in viewing in one session, not the same "class".
  • It is clear that we are not going to achieve consensus on this issue since you are simply restating your arguments. Will you concede that having the template on the page is not a problem or shall we seek comments from other users? Rls 01:23, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)
I am still not of the opinion it is helpful and if it serves no purpose, I believe it does not belong. Proceed to solicit other opinions then. --Jiang 02:11, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As per my comment in the section above (should I move it down here?) there appears at least in the history of my remote corner of the Empire to have been some kind of legal distinction between the status of a Colony and the status of a Crown Colony. The distinction here is that the Mainland Colony, as it's also known, was constituted as a Crown Colony, while "Vancouver's Island" was a Colony (er, um, maybe it was the other way around). The difference may have to do with the elected Executive Council on the Island and the appointed one that launched the Mainland, where Governor Douglas ruled autocratically. Part of the reason for this was the relative lack of British subjects on the Mainland at the time he declared the Colony - unilaterally, and also taking a step outside protocol by contacting Admiral Baynes at the British base in Callao, Peru, to give him a hand (Baynes declined, but eventually was sent there with orders from England in hand).

So Douglas had to appoint who was at hand, and there was no way to call an election, as he had been forced to do on Vancouver Island. That may have been part of the reason for the status and hence the title of Crown Colony, i.e. that it had been constituted by edict rather than by appointment, and the need to avoid responsible government, as such as it was in colonial councils, from functioning and getting in the way of consolidating the British grip on the until-then unincorporated but British-claimed territory, which until then had no legal land-law status within the Empire (the HBC had only a trading license, not title as they had had in the actual watershed of Hudson Bay). Ath the time of incorporation the Mainland was on the lip of American annexation and "something had to be done"; the constitutional difference between the two colonies might be at least partly a result of that.

So anyway, point is there's some kind of constitutional or legal difference between the two; when I find out more (it's in an old correspondence somewhere, from a friend who's a constitutional law expert/professor from years ago) I'll come back and put it here (discussion page; you tell me if it should go on the main page . . . ). But for now, that's my two bits.Skookum1 09:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Cayman not a stage 2

I am a citizen of Cayman and would just like to make a few comments about the information on this page. Our Executive Council (which was renamed the Cabinet in 2003) is elected from the Legislative Assembly, not appointed by the Governor. Elections are held every 4 years, although they can be postponed by the Governor (as can the prime minister of most parliamentary systems.) Also, I would say the term self-governing colony does apply to Cayman. The Governor hardly ever makes news, except when he is receiving a foreign dignitary, or little notices in the paper saying "H.E. The Hon. Gov. Bruce Dinwiddy, CMG will be away until the 23rd of November at a conference for colonial governors in Trinidad. The Hon. Chief Secretary James Ryan will preside as Acting Governor until His Excellency's return," for example." Another example is the recent spat over the EU Tax Savings Directive, to which the Government assembled a team that went to argue the Island's case at the EU Court of First Instance, with no direct involvement by the Governor. Yet another example would be the recent Euro Bank scandal, in which widespread public opinion in Cayman was to throw out our Attorney General, who is an appointee of the Governor. The Governor stood by him, but the Legislative Assembly unanimously passed a vote of no confidence in him, and he resigned soon after. Just a few examples of how Cayman does not directly fit the Stage 2 category. Also - I should note that there is currently a Constitutional Reform Committee which takes many of these events into account, and that there will be a general election in May in which one of the parties' major platform issues is further self-governance. Travisritch 04:23, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, good luck to you, Cayman Islanders, but your reference to "a conference for colonial governors in Trinidad" is bizarre and anachronistic. The Governors of Overseas Territories don't attend conferences in London, much less in independent Commonwealth countries, although they are summoned for meetings with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. There is an Overseas Territories Consultative Council, which Chief Ministers, the Premier of Bermuda, and whatever the equivalent is in the Cayman Islands.

Quiensabe 2005-08-24 02:36 UTC.

Renaming the status

This article looks like it'd be a good a place to discuss the steps and when each of the territory was renamed from "colony"/"crown colonies" progressively to "overseas territory". I could only find out that the UK parliament voted in 1997 to rename all "dependent territories/overseas dependencies" as "overseas territories". But when was it enacted in each of the territory? --Kvasir 18:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

removed gender bias

I have editted the article to remove gender bias toward males. There have been many women who have served as Commissioners/Governors/Administrators. Among these is Louise Savill, a former BIOT Administrator and Deborah Barnes Jones, the Governor of Montserrat. I feel this male bias is disrespectful. - Hoshie.Crat 07:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Gibraltar

"Only in Malta was integration ever seriously considered by the British Government, in 1955, but this was later abandoned, while in Gibraltar it was rejected in 1976."

This seems like odd wording. If it was rejected in Gibraltar in 1976 it must have been seriously considered there also. The article says that in the case of Malta integration was considered by the British government, as if Gibraltar considered it themselves but the British government would not have obliged had they asked for integration. There was (and maybe still is, but I think it's defunct), in Gibraltar, an Integration with Britain Party, which even supplied the Chief Minister briefly in the early 70s. So, was integration ever on the cards for Gib or was it really only Malta? Either way, this ought to be clarified. (It's also interesting to note that while Malta went in a different direction and became independent less than 10 years later, Gibraltar is these days probably the most integrated of all British overseas territories, even participating in elections to the European Parliament as part of the South West England regional constituency. Were it not for Spanish objections, it would be quite conceivable that Gib could be given representation a Westminster constituency (although a relatively small one) and retain its House of Assembly as a kind of devolved Parliament, as in Scotland.) — Trilobite (Talk) 19:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

'Integration for Gibraltar was rejected outright by the UK in 1976' would probably a more accurate description. Roy Hattersley, then Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office visited the Rock and made it plain that it was a non-starter (as was independence). That has remained the case to this day. There is an Integration With Britain Movement, but the Integration With Britain Party is well and truly dead.
Yes, Gibraltar could be more securely attached to the UK in the way you suggest, like Ceuta and Melilla (claimed by Morocco) are with Spain, but it is unlikely. Although local politicians have expressed support for the idea of integration from time to time, even Peter Caruana, the incumbent Chief Minister, whose party's last election manifesto argued against it, most take the view that it's more trouble than it's worth, and the UK (or the FCO) won't agree to it. Quiensabe 2005-24-08 UTC 02:15

British overseas territories part of EU?

Could it be explicitly said whether British overseas territory are part of the European Union? --Abdull 21:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

See Special member state territories and their relations with the EU for full details. Anyway, here's the short version: Gibraltar is considered a part of the EU as it joined when the rest of UK did. All of other BOTs (including WSBA and ESBA) aren't in the EU. - Hoshie 07:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Gibraltarians - UK nationals for EU purposes

I have removed the comment "Gibraltarians are considered UK nationals for EU purposes".

It's a true statement - British overseas territories citizens (BOTCs) connected with Gibraltar are UK nationals for EU purposes, the only BOTCs to have that status on the basis of being BOTC.

However, since 21 May 2002, people in all other British territories bar the Sovereign Base Areas have full British citizenship which they hold alongside BOTC. So because of their British citizenship (and not because of BOTC), persons from Bermuda, St Helena, Cayman Islands etc are also UK nationals for EU purposes.

However the Overseas Territories other than Gibraltar are not part of the EU and do not vote in 'European elections'. JAJ 05:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Sovereign Base Areas

"The term "Overseas territory" has only been used since 2002 ... The term does not apply ... to the Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus which are governed by the British military."

According to Schedule 6 of the British Nationality Act 1981, the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia are a British overseas territory on the same basis as any other.

The fact that British overseas territories citizens solely connected with the SBAs are not entitled to British citizenship is irrelevant.

There's no reason I can see why they should be excluded from the article. JAJ 04:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I've updated the intro to take acocunt of that. The FCO also staes they are an overseas territory, although does not list them in the profile section. The SBA article best deals with their unqiue situation. Astrotrain 19:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Legally and constitutionally they are an Overseas Territory and it's best to mention them in this article. The two main differences I can see are: a. practical jurisdiction is exercised by the MoD rather than the FCO, and b. British Overseas Territories citizens from the SBAs are excluded from British citizenship under the British Overseas Territories Act 2002. JAJ 02:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Citizenship

I removed the following from the end of the citizenship section:

Other uninhabited territories such as British Antarctic Territory and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands

I removed it because, obviously, it doesn't make any sense. If anyone knows what it's supposed to say, have at 'er. FireWorks 05:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Page move

I moved this here from Overseas territory of the United Kingdom on behalf of User:JFG - just to clarify, I don't have any particular opinion about what title is correct. CDC (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I have minor issues with the content and title of this article – namely, this article should be at UK overseas territories (or initial uppercase, or even Overseas territories (UK)). For example, the UK government 2005 yearbook indicates this term for these territories (e.g., on p. 77; uppercase) and there are more than enough online occurrences otherwise. Apropos, the term is implicit regarding territoriality, and indications in the current article intro are contrary to this. (Bear in mind,, though, UK Sovereign Base Areas, which arguably are not UK OTs.) If there are no objections ... E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Please desist. See [1] Andrew Yong 14:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
This is interesting, but it doesn't necessarily invalidate the proposal nor official mentions elsewhere. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Why does Crown colony redirect here?

  • Bermuda isn't a crown colony it still has a House of Assembly. CaribDigita 21:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Other British possessions were Crown Colonies, e.g. Colony of Vancouver Island.Skookum1 21:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Crown Colony in the historical context was usually when Britain dissolved almost all sovereignty in a territory. This was usually on the grounds that territories with a sovereign House of Assembly were difficult to manage from abroad. This happened in many countries, but one that comes to mind is Dominica in 1896. CaribDigita 22:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the redirect should be cancelled. Crown Colony status is part of the national history of places as varied as Singapore, New Zealand and the 13 original states of the US. The British overseas territories are a new status invented in the last years of the last century. It's fairly hard to discuss the history fo thsoe places when you redirect to a novel class of British territory, all of them tiny. We've got an old, large and significant historical subject, Crown colonies, that somehow redirects to a new and insignificant subject, British overseas territories. Alan 03:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Would it make more sense to redirect "Crown Colony" to "British Empire"? Matt 22:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC).

Turks and Caicos Islands

They have just undergone constitutional reform -- since yesterday, their head of government is not Chief Minister any longer, but Premier instead... Does this also mean that T&CI status is at par with Bermuda's now, meaning they have the highest level of self-government possible? If so, the table and descriptions should be adapted to that effect... —Nightstallion (?) 19:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Empire?

In the first line of the history section of the article there's a reference to the English Empire. Am I right in thinking that there was no English Empire, and this should read British? Ironcorona 08:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

  • It may mean overseas territories originally colonised by the Kingdom of England- ie before 1707- such as Bermuda? Astrotrain 08:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

History section needs some attention

The "History" section in this article seems to read OK up until the paragraph starting "The term colony implies an extension of...". Then follows a text dump which seems to start the story again from page 1, overlapping, rehashing and elaborating on what's already been said. It almost looks as if it's been copied verbatim from another article or source without any regard to fitting in with what was already there. (It also contains probably the longest paragraph I've ever seen!). Ideally needs some attention. Matt 19:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC).

ditto - the following from the history section needs...well...work:
Although Britain itself has seen immigration from these areas (over a far longer time frame), the nature, timing, and size of this non-British settlement, the resulting racial makeups of many of the populations, and both the legacies of racism, slavery, and economic exploitation, on the one hand, and the attitudes, within and without Britain and its territories, to nationality and ethnicity as they relate to race, on the other, mean that the relationship between Britain and some of its remaining settlements is often seen as more analogous to that which had existed between Britain and some of its now independent territories in Africa or Asia, rather than that with the previous North American or Australasian territories
yes - that's a single sentence, not a paragraph! Carre 21:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Page move suggestion

This page really should be moved to "British Overseas Territories" or "British Overseas Territory" — it is a formal term that requires capitalisation (somewhat akin to United States of America, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or British Army). It is especially the case here as the page makes distinction between an Overseas Territory and other overseas territories such as Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man.

Moongate 02:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

    • Agreed. Matt 01:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC).

CROWN COLONIES!!?!?

Crown Colonies had a different constitutional arrangement from British overseas territories. To say that the BOT's were previously "called" crown colonies is wrong. They previously WERE crown colonies. The fact that crown colonies re-directs to this page now makes every link to historical crown colonies incorrect since there is no discussion of what makes a crown colony a crown colony. Suggestions? Nigelhenry (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

But back on-to Crown colonies, this article Evolution of the British Empire has crown colony defined only= but only halfway- I think. Because in some circumstances the British Empire might also institute "Crown colony" status if a place was seen as moving out of the direction of what it should be.
I've been noticing there appears to be a steady agenda on Wikipedia- to overly complicate the role of the British Monarchy. There is some sort of move afoot to place either the Queen, the words "Commonwealth Realm", "Personal union" or "The Commonwealth of Nations" on seemingly every article of a country that is or was affiliated with the British Empire at one time. In most cases a simple passing comment would suffice. It also appears to have crept on to here too by trying to overly inflate the role of the Monarchy and trying to call everyone "Crown colonies" instead of just British colony or British Dependency. I feel it could merely have been kept simple. Now it will be next to impossible to tell in each country's history if they really were becoming a new colony, or simply undergoing a change of government status towards "Crown colony" government. Because in both cases "Crown colony" is going to be present. Hopefully one day it will all be straightened out. CaribDigita (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
There's some kind of legal distinction between a Crown Colony and a plain ol' Colony; something to do with the way they were charted/mandated. I always get them mixed up; Crown Colony was the official description of one of the two main BC colonies, either the Colony of Vancouver Island or the Colony of British Columbia - but not the succesoor colony, teh United Colonies of Vancouver Island and British Columbia (which is a wiki-name only for something also called the Colony of British Columbia), and not the Colony of the Queen Charlotte Islands. At this point I'm jusut guessing but I think it was the Island Colony that bore the "Crown" designation; the Coonoy of BC and the Colony of the QCI were decreed by the govenror of VI, not directly by the Crown; mayhbe that's the distnction; I'll dig around some old emails for an email from a law professor friend a t U.Vic who explained it to me once upon a time....Skookum1 (talk) 01:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • There is a timeline on britishcolumbia.com? [2] It looks like Canada uses "Crown colony" the same ways as I was advocating too.
Example 1: [3] It reads:

"The ministry's origins date back to 1854 when three road commissioners were appointed to oversee spending on the construction of roads in the colony. The first wagon road built was Craigflower Road connecting farms in the area of Fort Victoria. Later attention turned to the mainland where early roadbuilding was closely linked to the gold rushes.

The commission became the Department of Lands and Works in 1858. It was headed by a chief commissioner, whose responsibilities included, among other things, to locate, construct and maintain highways and bridges in what was then still a Crown colony but which became a province in 1871 when it entered confederation with the rest of Canada."
Example 2: [4] It reads:
"[ . . . ]
"The gold rush, combined with the expansionist policy of the United States, worried James Douglas (1803-1877), governor of Vancouver Island. The threat to British sovereignty from the incoming waves of gold seekers from the U.S. was very real to Douglas, and in his reports to London he painted a grave picture of the situation.
Acting quickly, the British Parliament passed an act in August 1858 to establish a crown colony on the Pacific mainland. The official ceremony proclaiming the Crown Colony of British Columbia took place on November 19, 1858, at Fort Langley.
To celebrate British Columbia's 150th anniversary and recognize the pivotal role of the Fraser River Gold Rush in the province's creation, Canada Post is issuing a domestic rate (52¢) stamp on August 1, 2008.
"The Province of British Columbia is delighted that Canada Post has created a stamp to mark the 150th anniversary of British Columbia as a Crown Colony," says Stan Hagen, B.C. Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts. "This commemorative stamp will heighten awareness of BC150 celebrations as we proudly showcase our province's history, First Nations heritage, rich cultural diversity and widespread achievements to the world."
In other words the British founded their colony. However due to an influx of people they stripped local authority and instituted Crown Colony governance.
I also found a *very* good source that shows the evolution of British Colonies. One of the better explanations I've seen yet online. It shows from Crown Colony status to Self-Governing Status.
See the bottom under "Stages of colonial evolution"
  • http://www. nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Crown-colony#Stages-of-colonial-evolution
A Crown colony is the first 2 of the evolution of a colony steps. Before steps 3 / 4 is where a Crown Colony becomes a self governing colony. Prior to steps 1 & 2 would be a British Protectorate. It would have been nice if NationMaster had included that.

CaribDigita (talk) 06:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't put much reliance on Stan Hagen or his speechwriters to get historical details correctly, he's not a reliable source (he is, after all, a politician....). It may be that it was BC that was the Crown Colony, and Vancouver Island that was just a plain old colony. But I should stress also that the other quote you've provided, from the Canada Post write-up, is no more reliable than anything else; Canadian national agencies/bodies are in the habit of misconstruing Briitsh Columbia history on multiple counts, this could just be another one, i.e. where because "crown colony" sounds pompous and gets used, it gets repeated, even though it may not be correct. All I know is that teh one colony was a crown colony, the other one wasn't (tehre was a third colony, too, the QCI, adn I think it was just a plain old colony, not a crown colony). Again, all I know is that there's a distinction, I'm unclear as to what that is; the email that might have that in it is buried in an old netscape inbox on a now-external hard drive I'm having trouble re-loading (power connector needs straightening...). And again, neither Stan Hagen nor Canada Post (which is not a private company, no longer a government body) is the source needed; the source needed is the wording of the acts of (British) Parliament that established the respective colonies; I wouldn't ivnest any value in either presskit, Hagen's or Canada Post's....Skookum1 (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(end quote) 140.247.23.126 (talk) 08:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Longest sentence ever?

"Although Britain itself has seen immigration from these areas (over a far longer time frame), the nature, timing, and size of this non-British settlement, the resulting racial makeups of many of the populations, and both the legacies of racism, slavery, and economic exploitation, on the one hand, and the attitudes, within and without Britain and its territories, to nationality and ethnicity as they relate to race, on the other, mean that the relationship between Britain and some of its remaining settlements is often seen as more analogous to that which had existed between Britain and some of its now independent territories in Africa or Asia, rather than that with the previous North American or Australasian territories."

I'm stuggling to believe anyone could have wrote this without purposefully trying to make it needlessly long. I'll have a go at chopping it up--The Spith 20:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

That is the paradigm of Charles Dickens' writing style, it even includes the overuse of commas. :) Chris Buttigiegtalk 21:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Effect of US DST rule change, 2006/2007

US DST rules have changed significantly, effective from March 1st 2007. The clock change which would have happened on April 1st 2007 will occur on March 11th 2007. The autumn clock change will be a week later than in the past.

That affects (most of) the USA. Also most of Canada, of course, and the Bahamas (Commonwealth, and off-topic here). It also affects Bermuda and Turks & Caicos, which are British overseas territories.

Four other BOTs are near North America; i don't know their plans.

Change in Summer Time rules affects IT and travel.

(a) Does it affect any other BOTs (or commonwealth)?

(b) Is it, after independent verification, worth mentioning here or in individual BOT pages? I rather think it might be.

82.163.24.100 20:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion re Gibraltar

Hi. There is a discussion going on over the Gibraltar article as to the legal status of the territory. The outcome would have an impact on this article, because the claim is that Gibraltar is not a "British" overseas territory, because the legal name has changed since the 2002 Act. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 11:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


Independence

"The Dominions achieved full independence with the Statute of Westminster (1931)". No they didn't. They gained partial independence to varying degrees. Treay Ports, Goff Whitlam crisis, Newfoundland, shared crown etc etc etc

194.46.227.118 23:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Do BOTs include SBAs?

Does the term "British overseas territories" include the "Sovereign Base Areas"? ― 韓斌/Yes0song (談笑 筆跡 다지모) 11:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The two Sovereign Base Areas form one British Overseas Territory. The only differencies between the SBAs and other British Overseas Territories are: 1) The territory is administred through the Ministry of Defence rather than the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as the territory is primarily used for defence purposes, 2) Permanent inhabitants of the territory have British Overseas Territory Citizenship rather than United Kingdom Citizenship & 3) Despite a permanent civilian population, the territory (like a territory with no permanent population) has no right to self determination. All other territories with permanent inhabitants have a right to self determination including the choice of independence, the only one that does not is Gibraltar which has the right to remain British or merge with another state (Spain). YourPTR! (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

colonies in the classical sense

Could this be referenced, and what dose it mean? If it cannnot be referenced should it be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domer48 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"The original English colonies in the New World were colonies in the classical sense, in that they were plantations of English subjects in lands hitherto outside the dominions of the Crown."
It's a fairly simple sentence, the latter clause defines the former. If it cannot be verified it can be removed. And don't forget to sign your comments. Thanks, -- Chris B • talk • contribs 18:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If it was fairly simple I would not be asking, and no I don't think the latter defines the former. Is it a quote from some one? Would the classical sense be the same as “colonialism.” For example the Plantation of Ulster, was that done in the classical sense? --Domer48 19:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"Classical sense", according to the following clause, simply describes the original colonies as being plantations of English subjects (i.e. people ruled by another) in lands which were up to that point outside the ruling control of the British crown. Try removing the verbosity (the underlined bit) and it makes more sense. I am afraid I don't know anything about the Plantation of Ulster. You may, however, wish to try the reference desk because this page is strictly speaking for discussing changes to the article. -- Chris B • talk • contribs 19:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok I will remove the verbosity. Strictly speaking though, that whole section has not go one reference. I will simply assume good faith, and leave it to be referenced by someone who knows more about the subject? Me I still on a learning curve. Thanks for the advice. --Domer48 19:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Image Gallery

There are 17 images in the gallery of which over 50% of those are of Bermuda. If there is going to be a gallery of images within the article surely it should aim to portray at least one image of each of the 14 territories. I will try to improve this later on but if anyone else wants to give it a shot before I have, just go for it! --Gibmetal 77talk 13:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done. The only territory not included is British Antarctic Territory as there are no available images. --Gibmetal 77talk 18:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Garrison HQ, Dhekelia.jpg

The image Image:Garrison HQ, Dhekelia.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Oct08 edits

I'm really not quite clear what the gist of this edit was - it seems to be quietly dropping or confusing the use of "crown colony", which as I understand it had a specific constitutional significance. I'm not quite able to put my finger on it, I'm a bit tired today, but it doesn't seem right. Anyone better informed about this than me? Shimgray | talk | 12:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

October 18 edits, Crown colony et al

I've been kindly asked to explain the full gambit of my edits. Whereas the expressed intention was mainly to bring this article inline with what a British Overseas Territory (BOTs) is as it stands right now. So I'll try to do so here. The first thing that jumped out at me is that the article is trying to quantify exactly what is a British Overseas Territory in the current sense but it has scattered across it more historical contexts too. Now it could be argued that previous places that were overseas areas of the UK could also be re-direct here but it is probably be better for them to reference British Empire instead since that would have been how they were governed then. This is mainly because British Overseas Territory are a current evolving organ (or being) and if somewhere isn't a British Overseas Territory right now this probably wouldn't be the correct destination for those articles no??? Bear in mind there are articles on Wikipedia (right now) on citizenship of BOTS so if you mix Australia, Belize etc. as currently redirected to here and other articles says BOTS are British Overseas citizens you give the wrong picture. (See also British Overseas Territories citizen)

The existing statement that was here implied that British Territories are not actually a part of the UK. This is true in a sense. E.g. the relationship between Scotland or Wales with England is a lot different than say Bermuda and England. If you are of actual Bermudian parents you would be a British Overseas citizen. If you are born in Martinique, Guadeloupe etc. you are considered as being in a region of France.

In terms of government in places such as Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, the British Virgin Islands, and the Turks and Caicos islands they have evolved to the level of having a Premier (usually that is the jumping off point for territories should they choose to become independent.) Under that relationship the office of Chief Minister becomes Premier. And they vest more powers of the Governor into the Premier. At this level it is taking on the character of a Self-governing territory and would gain more control over the budget, immigration, national agenda and the legislature gains more power from the Governor as well. It this state legislation is usually presented to the Governor for the official go ahead. The UK still retains the responsibility of national defence and International relations though. When a place becomes independent those costs and final responsibilities become the territory's own responsibility. The office of Premier becomes Prime Minister. The Governor becomes a Governor-Genereal. etc.

Crown colony goes in the opposite direction. In British Guiana the UK had merged three former Dutch territories into one single state (British Guiana) and the Governor was granted the majority of the powers there because the Dutch system would not entirely lend to the English system. This happened too in Trinidad, Singapore, South Africa etc. (Crown colony is really something that again I think more belongs in the British Empire article because pretty much all current BOTS have progressed pass that stage.) Some go by the term "Crown Dependency" (which I have to do more research on) but it so far looks like a modern adaptation of a Crown colony. e.g. the UK still retains most of the governance in that location via an Executive Governor of sorts. Whether that governor in a Crown dependency has the majority of powers over the legislature and so on (as happens in a Crown colony government) I need to research more. Basically, becoming a Crown colony was not something that British colonies aspired to have happen. It would be basically be like having the government seize control of your house but still allow you to live in it. It kinda means you overstepped your bounds and were reigned in by a direct representative of the Monarchy. I use the Commonwealth of Dominica as an perfect example because at a time when the legislature started to become too powerful it was stripped of its powers in 1896 and reduced down to crown colony level of governance. (Which doesn't mean it was colonised by British it already was a British possession.) South Africa underwent Crown colony government as well it appears. See Alfred Milner, 1st Viscount Milner#The peace under the header "The Peace" note the importance of showing South Africa's relationship as a British Colony as it moved back and forth between "Crown colony government" and "Self-Governing" status. That is one of the few articles that I've been able to find that didn't have the phrase "crown colony" haphazardly thrown around in the incorrect context, but actually showed how "Crown colony" is a status of government that came and went in British colonies.

In Singapore, Britain used Crown colony governance again as a basis to transform the existing Dutch system and to vest the majority of powers in the Governor until this was done. (See Singapore in the Straits Settlements.

In 1876 riots broke out in Barbados at the prospect of merging Barbados even more firmly into the British Windward Islands, which was a just a loose association. Most in Barbados were afraid that their 230+ years of Self Government under the British would be eventually reversed exposing the island to being placed under crown colony status. The move was halted and the British Government removed the Governor (John Pope Hennessy) and accused him of inciting the riot. (Source: Insight Guide Barbados ISBN: 981-234-067-1) CaribDigita (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

This should clearly illustrate what I was talking about regaring BOTs and nationals in the BOTs.

Here it is. As you can see Bermudian nationals are not granted the same benefits automatically as nationals of the United Kinddom. Clear example.

Article: (Bermudian) Premier leads push for visa-free travel in the European Union Date: Published: October 29. 2008 07:40AM Source: http://www.royalgazette.com/ - The Bermuda Royal Gazette Newspaper

Link: http://www.royalgazette.com/siftology.royalgazette/Article/article.jsp?articleId=7d8aeab30030001&sectionId=60

[SNIP]Premier Ewart Brown has called for Bermudian passports to be accepted in Europe in the same way as British passports.

He made the point when he chaired an Overseas Territory Consultative Council (OTCC) session yesterday on visa-free travel for British Overseas Territory Countries' (BOTC) passport holders.

According to a statement from press secretary Glenn Jones, the Premier made a presentation with the objective of alleviating what he described as a "disconnect throughout the European Union on how to handle Bermuda passport holders".

Dr. Brown said: "If Bermudians are British citizens their passports should be accepted anywhere in the European Union just as British passports are. Right now that is not the case. [/SNIP]

CaribDigita (talk) 06:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed para from intro

I removed a paragraph from the introduction. This is an article on British Overseas Territories, not the legal differences between the different types of British colony. And wording "should not be confused with" may be appropriate for a school study aid but is not appropriate for an encylo (who said anyone would get confused?) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Conflicting information. Are the British Overseas Territories a part of the Commonwealth of Nations of some form?

There's an information conflict right now. On *this* article it says the Commonwealth of Nations do not contain the British Overseas territories (e.g. Bermuda, Turks and Caicos, Cayman Islands etc. etc. However, on Royal Commonwealth Society it says the name of that organisation itself was changed to reflect the evolution of those same British Overseas territories. Which is correct? As far as I knew last- the Commonwealth of Nations did not cover the British Overseas Territories. Did this change recently? CaribDigita (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No it hasn't changed they're not part of the Commonwealth of Nations but like most things its shades of grey. Many tale part in the Commonwealth Games for example. Justin talk 10:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

crown colonies linked here breaks 100s of articles links.

The linking of Crown colonies here breaks 100s of articles links. For example History of Belize. Belize is not an British Overseas Territory. Therefore I'm taking it upon myself to fix the Caribbean articles rather than have them confuse people by making them think the independent countries are still territories of the UK. Also Crown colonies brings a link from Massachusetts and the U.S. state of Georgia to here??? Why would that link be here???? (As currently done by the redirect. from British Crown Colony) They are not British Overseas territories... For example see Georgia (U.S. state)#Early history they were crown colony governments (7th paragraph). CaribDigita (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Then either remove the wikilink or write a British Crown Colony article but please don't restore that inaccurate disambiguation page. Justin talk 09:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I've talked myself out on the issue. I've shown more than enough supportive evidence, but I'm leaving it alone now and letting it alone in all of its current status. However for the record it was accurate. The Library of Congress backs what I've said which in turn backs what NationMaster says and I've shown that source before too. However you and a few others seem to deem it to be "inaccurate".

Follow up on my sources for newcomers that happen by this conversation in future:

CaribDigita (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC).

You do realise that the third reference is a mirror of an early version of THIS ARTICLE????
Oh and "you and a few others" i.e. you don't have a consensus. Justin talk 09:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello all. I thought Justin's suggestion of a separate article was a good one, so I created a Crown colony article of its own. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 15:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Saw you'd been busy whilst I was nursing a hangover. Thanks, saved me the job. Justin talk 11:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Page move?

Shouldn't we move this page to British Overseas Territories as the term is used in capitals in the rest of the article? --Gibmetal 77talk 07:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

  1. SupportOppose I believe that would be correct as per MOS. Justin talk 09:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC) Addded: Seems as I was incorrect see [5]. Justin talk 10:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support In my opinion it should be capitalised. 86.133.247.1 (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC).
  3. Support as per above. Is there an admin who can now move it? -- JackofOz (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. In UK legislation no capitalisation is used. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting read. Are UK and overseas territories heading for a showdown over "Tax Haven" label?

  • http://baumanblog.sovereignsociety .com/2009/03/second-dissolution-of-the-british-empire-whats-left.html - Second Dissolution of the British Empire (What's Left) -- Note this site is banned? (I didn't know that was possible until now.) So you'll have to move the .com part before "/2009". I too wonder what will happen between Britain and the overseas territories. What other industry(ies) could they fall back on besides tourism???

CaribDigita (talk) 03:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Its a blog and doesn't meet the requirements of WP:RS. Justin talk 09:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Turks and Caicos heading for Crown Colony governance for next 2 +/- years?

This is fascinating. You don't see the British Government institute Crown Colony rule often. Usually there is something bad that forces it to happen such as this.

CaribDigita (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's the first step to it becoming a Canadian territory, which has been on the Canadian mafia's wish list for some time now. :) Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
The Turks and Caicos would probably need to make this decision known *before* this new administrative process kicks in, because it strips the territory of most of its local governance. (E.g. the Premier and the Cabinet.) The British Parliament would likely still have the past an act to grant the TCs Independence or for transference of responsibilities to the Canadian Federation. As a matter of exercise, it probably would be closer to the agreement for the Transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong. CaribDigita (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Was just joking, BTW. I don't think joining Canada is a realistic possibility. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Stages

What are those stages of overseas territories? Baksando 01:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Relations with the British Empire

As these territories make up what is left of the British Empire should there be a section with there relation to it?

Ryan, 22 June 09

The British Empire no longer exists. It hasn't for some time. Justin talk 22:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes under OED definition of Empire. (quote)
• noun 1 an extensive group of states ruled over by a single monarch or ruling authority. 2 supreme political power. 3 a large commercial organization under the control of one person or group.
• adjective (Empire) denoting a neoclassical style of furniture and dress fashionable chiefly during the First Empire (1804-15) in France. (end quote)[6]
They key word there is ruled and the British Monarch doesn't hold major power any longer. The Monarch's power has largely been taken over by the Government which mainly uses the Monarch's name to carry out duties. E.g. when "The Crown" seizes your land it is not literally Queen Elizabeth coming and taking your land it is the government in power. If you name "The Crown" in a lawsuit it is not literally Queen Elizabeth you are suing it is her Government which holds the power. CaribDigita (talk) 03:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Citations and sources are needed

Please be sure that all additions to the British overseas territories article are verifiable. Any new items added to the article should have inline citations for each claim made. As a courtesy to editors who may have added claims previously, before Wikipedia citation policy was what it is today, a few of the existing unsourced claims have been tagged {{citation needed}} to allow a bit of time for sources to be added. N2e (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Except they're already verified by a source named in the article. So if you feel inline citations are needed, where you indicate, then add them. Slapping a {{cn}} tag in a drive by edit, leaving it for someone else to do is unproductive IMHO. Ever heard of WP:SOFIXIT? Personnally as they're sourced and verifiable, I don't see the need. So unless you can give me a good reason to keep those tags I propose to remove them. Justin talk 15:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean Justin. For example, this text:

Bermuda, settled in 1609, is the oldest and most populous of the Overseas Territories, and most executive powers have been devolved to the head of government, known as the Premier. Its system of government is very similar to that of a sovereign Commonwealth Realm. The UK government retains only minor powers, exercised through the Governor, but most of those are handed to local ministers for day-to-day purposes. Bermuda's Parliament held its first session in 1620, and Bermuda has been largely self-governed and self-sufficient since then.

has no inline citations to support the five or six claims of that particular paragraph. Quite simply, per WP:V, it needs references or can be removed.
Now, on the other hand, if you mean that this same set of claims is repeated from earlier in the article, such that it is "already verified by a source named in the article", then I would propose we delete the second occurence and so eliminate the redundancy. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
So if you feel it needs inline citations, then why not put them in yourself instead of expecting other people to do it. The issue as I see it, is simply driving by, slapping tags over the article in the manner of a bot, without explicitly identifying which facts require inline citations is about as much use to anyone following you as a chocolate teapot. You've indicated above you feel this requires 5 or 6 inline citations, so what use was a single {{cn}} tag plonked at the end of a paragraph? And there is a source already named in the article, each citation would reference the same web page. So tell me how exactly a series of redundant and identical inline citations improves the article? Sorry for being so blunt but quoting policy without using a spot of common sense about what it would actually mean for this article, well its something I'm failing to see how it improves th article. Justin talk 07:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree that citations and sources are needed. For example, when I checked the area of Anguilla I found a source [7] that stated the area of Anguilla as being 91km2 and not 102km2 as in this article. Michael Glass (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
The issue raised was the way tags were being used. Sticking a tag on the end of a section is worse than useless. Precisely what fact needs a citation? See my point. Justin talk 20:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Such tags are not "worse than useless." They are a courtesy to those editors who care most about an article, or are perhaps are knowledgeable or expert about where the secondary literature might support the assertions being made. Unless someone who cares comes along to support the claims, they have no place in a quality encyclopedia and, per WP:BURDEN, it is the editor who wants the unsourced material to stay that has the burden to cite it, or add it back later when a source is found. So I see the {{citation needed}} tag as a simple courtesy to other editors to allow some time to pass before a specific challenge is made by deleting the unsourced claims. N2e (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The area of Aguilla needs a citation, Justin. It also needs to be corrected. Michael Glass (talk) 08:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC). I believe that the population figures also need citations. Michael Glass (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC) Citations supplied. Michael Glass (talk) 07:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Cyprus claim on Bases

I'm not sure Cyprus actually does officially claim the bases. There is no mention of it in the CIA World Factbook which usually covers such matters under its "Transnational Issues" section (e.g. [8] [9] This needs a reference if it is to be put back. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

BAT

I undid this revision [10]. It's a map showing the location of the BOTs. The people that define the BOTs (the British) include the BAT as one, and so the map shows its location. As to the wording of the edit, the BAT could actually be argued to be under the "de facto" control of the UK (did Pfainuk mean "de jure"?) - but more to the point, such a claim needs a reference. If there is any perceived issue relating to "neutrality" then it should be addressed somewhere in the text, not in the location map caption. Note that the text already mentions that British claims overlap with Argentina and Chile (so the article can hardly be accused of being non-neutral). All that is missing is a statement that British claims to the BAT are not universally recognised. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't entirely disagree with you. The issue is essentially that we have a nice large map showing BOTs but don't mention anywhere close to it that one of them is not under the de facto control of the United Kingdom. Now, I can see the argument that we're illustrating BOTs and do not necessarily imply de facto control, but even so I think this could be improved.
I don't actually see how it could be argued that anything more than a tiny proportion of the BAT is under British de facto control. Does it need a reference? Do we really need a reference to suggest that no-one has practical control of an uninhabited and not-far-off uninhabitable territory? In any case, here's one that comes close, from a Melbourne newspaper.
Further, the Antarctic Treaty bars all kinds of military activity (Article 1), guarantees free access to scientists to the entire continent (Article 2), allows observers from all treaty states to visit all other bases (Article 7) and gives jurisdiction over observers and scientists to the state sending them (Article 8). All of which make the notion of British de facto control nigh-on impossible to maintain outside the British bases.
I don't mean de jure because the British position is that the BAT is de jure under the control of the United Kingdom. We can't say outright that it's not under British de jure control when the British say that it is.
We do say that the area is disputed with Chile and Argentina, but not until a lot further down the article. Is that enough? I don't think so. Close, yes, but not enough in my judgement. If the BAT was under full British de facto control, then it probably would be, but it isn't. Pfainuk talk 21:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
"Do we really need a reference to suggest that no-one has practical control of an uninhabited and not-far-off uninhabitable territory?". Does that mean it's OK to write that the northern reaches of Canada or Russia are not under their de facto control? Rather than get into our own personal interpretations about this, or of de jure (which law - international or British?) and de facto (what constitutes it when it's mainly scientists down there?), let's stick to what can easily be referenced. (1) Argentina and Chile's claims overlap [11] (2) not all countries recognize claims to Antarctica [12]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Your comment on de jure is my point exactly, and is why I did not use that phrase. I was wondering why you might have thought that I meant something quite so obviously non-neutral.
I find the idea that the existence of scientific bases from dozens of different countries (each under the jurisdiction of their own government) might constitute British de facto control inexplicable. The existence of such bases argues very much against British de facto control. But the fact is, this point is taken as read everywhere else on Wikipedia. You're doing the equivalent of asking for a source to show that grass is green. What, do you think the British have thrown up border controls on the twentieth and eightieth meridians or something?
But in any case, I gave you a source. You ignored it, but it is there. And here's another one. For the government of Antarctica it gives a long detail on the Antarctic Treaty System and in particular notes that:

Antarctica is administered through meetings of the consultative member nations; decisions from these meetings are carried out by these member nations (with respect to their own nationals and operations) in accordance with their own national laws.

The CIA note the existence of governments the US doesn't recognise in other places, such as Cyprus. Not only does it not say that the British have de facto control over Antarctica, it gives the framework for administration under a system by which Britain has no de facto control outside its own bases. The British don't exactly disagree:

Twenty eight nations, including the UK, have Consultative status. The Treaty parties meet each year at the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting. They have adopted over 300 recommendations and negotiated separate international agreements, of which three are still in use. These, together with the original Treaty provide the rules which govern activities in Antarctica. Collectively they are known as the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS).

For the record, Northern Canada and Russia are inhabited - note that Canada's relocation of Inuit peoples to its Arctic Archipelago was primarily aimed at asserting Canadian sovereignty there. Pfainuk talk 22:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding where I am coming from. I'm not disagreeing with your opinion. I'm just saying that it's not a clear-cut matter and rather than engage in your own arguments and interpretations of sources to support the addition of your specific wording, you need to put forward references which explicitly reach the same conclusion, otherwise it's synthesis.
Your first reference says "No country has any definitive sovereignty over any part of Antarctica". You wrote "Note that the British Antarctic Territory is not under the de facto control of the United Kingdom." The second statement does not necessarily follow from the first, and in order to draw that conclusion you must make assumptions which are not necessarily true and which the references do not explicitly confirm.
There are two options here: (1) find a reference which explicitly states that "the UK does not exercise de facto control over the BAT" or (2) use different wording which the references do support. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Addendum: from the FCO website, "(the BAT) is administered by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and the Commissioner for the BAT is the Head of the FCO's Overseas Territories Directorate. The BAT has a full suite of laws, and legal and postal administrations.". Wouldn't a Martian reading about the BAT's "full suite of laws and legal administrations" think that the British exercise "de facto control" over it? Again, not disagreeing with you, just trying to show that it's not a clear cut matter. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
This looks like an argument for the sake of an argument. You accept that, in fact, the BAT is not under British de facto control, but you're arguing that the statement requires a much higher standard of source than is required by policy. By your logic, we cannot use a source saying "grass is green" to verify a statement that says "grass is not orange". Policy does not require that we quote our sources verbatim. We are allowed, particularly in uncontroversial matters (such as the fact that the British do not have full de facto control over a vast frozen wasteland administered by the Antarctic Treaty System), to interpret sources when what we say is clearly covered by what they say.
Nonetheless, here are a few more sources for you to look at: the US State department a website/retail store another encyclopaedia Encarta. Do any of them say "the British Antarctic Territory is not under British de facto control"? No. Does that matter? No. Some say that no country controls any part of Antarctica. Others make it clear that Antarctica is governed according to the Antarctic Treaty System, an international set of laws that (as those sources make clear) preclude anything that could reasonably be considered de facto control of Antarctica outside national bases. Pfainuk talk 21:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Considering that any claim to the Antarctica is stalled by the signature of the Antarctic Treaty it could be worthy to use a lighter red for the BAT in the map. --Ecemaml (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Why? It's a "map of the location of the British overseas territories" in an article about the British overseas territories, not a map of "places in the world where the British still exercise political control" in an article on "British sovereignty". The British Antarctic Territory is one of 14 British overseas territories per British law - the way other nations view British claims to these territories is irrelevant to that fact - and it should therefore be displayed exactly the same way as the other 13. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
A clarification is needed in order to maintain balance with Argentina and Chile maps. --Jor70 (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Everyone's focussing on the map (for some reason maps always attract all the attention - I think it's because people can't be bothered to read the text) yet the very first sentence of the article says "The British overseas territories are fourteen territories that are under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom". Surely that is far more problematic with reference to the BAT? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
you rv the map text addition. Antarctica is such british territory as Antartida Chilena or Antartida Argentina , so the three maps should show this. If we dont like the text then just with a diff color on three maps --Jor70 (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The Argentina and Chile maps have nothing to do with this map, and there is no rule or policy stating that they should. The BOTs are the BOTs, and as far as the law which defines them goes, there is no special case for the British Antarctic Territory. Therefore, there is no reason it should be in a different colour (just like this map [13] in a House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee report on the BOTs). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that statement is POV in that it takes the British side in at least three (and probably four) sovereignty disputes - the BAT, Falklands, SGSSI and probably the BIOT (not Gibraltar, because Spain accepts British sovereignty over Gibraltar). I will change it. Pfainuk talk 21:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Argentina and Chile already have the claim on the lead but they also have it now on the map!. Why UK could not have the claim on the map too ? --Jor70 (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
The United Kingdom map does not show the British claim in Antarctica. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Colony/Flosssock1

Flosssock1 continues with his civil POV pushing that the British Empire is still in existence [14]. I reverted this, because one of the purposes of the BNA was to change "colony" to "dependent territory". Reference: "The Act came into force on 1 January 1983, effectively renaming the status of British (Crown) colony as Dependent Territory." [15] Note the "Crown" is in parentheses. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, please see the text of the British Nationality Act 1948, which the 1981 Act superceded, where we see many references to "United Kingdom and Colonies". In fact, the term "Crown colony" does not even feature. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 20:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't understand. I originally added 'colonies or..' Flosssock1 (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

sovereign

why are some states more sovereign than others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.231.129.49 (talk) 07:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Area and population of the British Overseas Territories

At the moment the article links to the National Archives (which gives the areas for 14 of the 15 "countries" mentioned (their word, not mine) [16]. for the 15th one, you have to go to the cia Factbook for the area of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands [17]. Adding up all those area it comes to 1,726,945.3 square kilometres. The populations add up to 258,522 so 260,000 is a fair estimate, but as the area is slightly out, I have changed the figures. I have also noted that most of the area is British Antarctic Territory.Michael Glass (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

One or multiple {{citation needed}} tags in a paragraph?

One regular editor of this page has suggested that a single {{citation needed}} tag at the end of an unsourced paragraph (where there are several potentially unsourced assertions in the paragraph) is not as useful as adding the tag to each and every unsourced assertion within the paragraph. But this same editor has also provided me feedback on several occasions now that he really doesn't care very much for citation needed tags at all, usually with the idea that the claim is sourced somewhere else in the article, or is widely known to be true, or some such similar argument. (all of which is fine, but should probably be handled on a case by case basis and considered individually--this question is NOT about any particular missing source, nor who should do the work of sourcing, but is rather more general.)

My question for regular editors of this article: Assuming a Wikipedia editor wants to challenge a claim on the grounds of sourcing, is there a consensus on which of the two forms are preferred? In many Wikipedia articles, I have found that editors think that more than one tag per paragraph is overkill. (This is a simple question about article improvement and the preferred process for indicating a source in needed for THIS article. Let's keep the conversation restricted to article improvement, viz, the edits to the encyclopedia, and not the editor.) Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Seeing no comment from other concerned editors to this point, I will continue with the fairly standard Wikipedia practice of tagging {{citation needed}} only at the end of an unsourced paragraph, even where there are several potentially unsourced assertions in the paragraph. If other editors would prefer a different practice for this article, I assume you will chime in here. N2e (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Tagging the end of the paragraph is utterly useless in helping someone identify what fact you dispute and provide a supporting citation. If you see that something needs a citation - WP:SOFIXIT. Adding {{cn}} to uncontroversial or well known material serves no purpose when the reference source is named in the paragraph. Tell me what purpose do you think this serves. Justin talk 13:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Justin -- It is difficult to be responsive to your questions when you bring up several topics in response to a single-topic section heading with a single question. So I will just respond to the part of your answer that deals with the topic of this section, and suggest you create a new section if you want to also discuss other topics. On the topic of one or many {{citation needed}} tags in an article, I've got it that you prefer multiple instead of only one. Let's wait a while (in this section on the Talk page) to see if a consensus develops among the regular editors of this page. I don't really care, I just want to go with the developed consensus, either way. N2e (talk) 03:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
You asked for feedback you got it. If you choose to ignore it that is entirely your prerogative. I have asked politely what purpose you think it serves tagging uncontroversial and well known material? Justin talk 12:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
And I have asked you, on multiple occasions now, to focus on the contributions to the encyclopedia rather than the contributor. My purposes, motivations and interests as an editor of Wikipedia are related to the later, so they won't be discussed further with you in the Talk space. N2e (talk) 02:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
As of now, only one of the regular editors of the BOT article have weighed in. Since I don't care one way or the other, I will assume the consensus (for now, at least) is that multiple {{citation needed}} tags in a single paragraph are preferred to only one at the end of the paragraph. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Citation question

In a related thing, how many times should the ref be inserted? I mean, suppose I write a whole paragraph and cite it. Is it standard practice to just put the cite at the end, or should it be after every single sentence? Thanks...Smarkflea (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Generally, a single citation can support an entire paragraph IF all of the assertions in the paragraph are supported by that source. In Wikipedia-land, oftentimes new assertions are added by other editors to an existing paragraph that may, or may not, be supported by the existing source. See WP:CS for more standard info, including exceptions where more frequent citations may be indicated. Good luck. N2e (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Image Galleries

Per WP:BRD guidelines would suggest taking an issue to talk when a change has been reverted, I trust that you will do that.

Image Galleries, yes wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a collection of images, our purpose is also to educate. The image gallery that has been repeatedly removed does that, it provides a gallery of images showing the diversity of BOT.

Guidlines are just that, guidelines, they are not mandatory. The gallery serves a function here that is not easily conveyed in text and the article is all the poorer for it. We need editors to create content not blindly follow guidelines without considering their actions will improve the article or not. Please consider whether your change does that and don't blindly quote guidelines in response, because equally I can quote others for example WP:IAR. Justin talk 12:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The WP:IG guidelines are quite specific about what is or is not allowable, and you've done absolutely nothing to the gallery in the article to address the specifics of the guidelines. There is nothing conveyed in the article by including the gallery that is not also conveyed in the Commons gallery. Having the gallery here simply redundant and unnecessary. "showing the diversity of BOT" is just an inanity - it means nothing but showing pretty pictures, which still makes it an "indiscriminate collection of images". So far, you appear to be the only editor supporting its inclusion, which means the consensus is against you. The gallery stays gone until that changes. - BilCat (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
You seem to have a strange idea of what constitutes consensus and really edit warring to impose a solution is just immature. You're seeking to change an established consensus here, the onus is actually on you to convince people to change, instead you're a WP:DICK and choose to edit war to impose your view. I will not indulge you in that. Congratulations have your own way but the article is all the poorer for it. Guidelines are just that guidelines, pretty pictures as you put it, actually convey a great deal of information and after all our purpose is to educate. Justin talk 13:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


For anyone who cares about building an encyclopedia any more, are there any out there? Justin talk 13:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

And so anyone who disagrees with you must be "tearing down the encyclopedia". Surely you can make better arguments that that. - BilCat (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
"The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject." How exactly does this gallery do that? It's not explicit, which the guidelines imply that it needs to be. - BilCat (talk) 14:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
To edit warring: You seem to think you're exempt from edit warring if your edits are superior for some reason. WP policy is clear that only vandalism reverts are exempt from 3RR caounts, which this clearly is not. One editor removed the gallery, you put it vback, and I supported his removal. All reverts on your part after that are edit warring, and stubborn enought to let you keep doing it. I'm quite willing to push 3RR if I think the situation warrants it, and so are you, as you've illustrated here. So please drop the lectures about edit warring being "immature" - your'e just as gulty of it in this situation, and so apparently don't consider immature when you do it. I don't think its immature when I do it either, but I do know when to stop to avoid crossing 3RR. Do you? - BilCat (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
No, I just can't be bothered to argue with someone being a WP:DICK being needleslly unpleasant over a WP:LAME dispute. I think it improves the article, you appear to think articles are improved by removing educational content and edit warring to impose your will. This appears to be a re-run of a similar discussion I had with you over your insistence on adding a long list of book title at random to articles, in fact pointedly so given your comments on edit warring. I have clearly indicated that I won't edit again and no I'm not willing to push 3RR. You might care to read WP:3RR as it is not a blanket allowance for 3 reverts if clearly your intention is to edit war to impose a solution as you indicate here. Whether collectively it has encyclopedic value is a subjective judgement. I point out it shows the diversity of BOT and you airily dismiss that without considering the point. Fine, don't listen but don't pretend this is about improving the article because you're not. Thats my last word on the matter. Justin talk 14:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Just a question.... why can you not add in the images inline? That would be fine, it's just large galleries that frankly have no real relevance to the content article that are against the guidelines. Also WP:BRD does not say you can edit war, which you are doing - I've counted 3 reverts now. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
He's only made two reverts in the last 24 hours by my count, as have I, so I don;t get his point that he's not revert-warring. Also, he has strangely one-sided definitions of edit-warring, and WP:DICK. I'm actually being quite nice to him by his own standards of past behavior. Still, he's given no explanation of what "shows the diversity of BOT", so I';ll ask more clearly this time: What kind of diversity? how is it relevant to the article? None of that is made clear by the galleerry's mere existence, and as such it is redundant to the Commons gallery. Anyway, Matt, I do think some of the images can be added to the article, but probably only 2 or three. Do you have any preferences as to which ones to add? - BilCat (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Two, my bad, sorry Justin. No preferences BilCat, though general overviews or views of the territory's government buildings would be best. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Matt no worries, I don't edit war and have no intention of doing so, especially over something so WP:LAME. BRD is intended to avoid edit wars, the idea being if your edit is reverted it is best to discuss before reverting again that is all. I liked the gallery simply because it illustrates quite neatly the diversity of the BOT, words would not do the same job of doing so that is all - but its not my work and I realise your edit was well intentioned. Rules being for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men, may I suggest that sometimes WP:IAR applies, guidelines are not rules either. There are some for whom guidelines and rules are ammunition for their ego to win battles over trivia, in my experience simply walk away and WP:DGAF is the best response. Justin talk 16:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

And Matt to answer your question, nothing to stop adding them inline, the gallery was handy for showing the breadth and diversity that was all. Justin talk 16:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Justin, I don't appreaciate your hypocrisy. You made 2 reverts, I made 2 reverts. If I was edit warring, then so were you. So plese stop pretending you're edits are suprior to mine in any way. I'm not admitting to edit warring, only pointing out that we both have made the same amount of reverts. There is no exemption for you on any grounds, as you';ve not accused me of vandalism - yet, anyway - with is the only allowable exemption. Please drop these hypocritical accusations - they only serve to stir up bad blood between us. So un;less you're prepared to avoid me, you need to accpet responsibilty for your own actions, and try to settle this like reasonable adults. - BilCat (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Further, we both appear to be opinionated, direct, stubborn people, yet you don't seem willing to accept those traits in others. Get over it. I am capable of working together with others civilly, in spite of a little personality conflict. You, however, don't appear to be able to do that. That's your problem, not mine. But when you keep m,aking snide remarks about me as if you're not doing the exact thing I'm doing, it then becomes my problem. If it continues, here or elsewhere, it will be dealt with according to WP policies and guidelines. - BilCat (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Guys, the personal stuff is screwing around with your arguments. BilCat, you should not have reverted once you were reverted, and although understandably upset at Justins reactions, shouldn't react by what appeared to be attacks. Justin, you should not use such harsh terminology with such little basis, does nothing but procure bad blood. There is a sole issue to solve. What purpose would a gallery serve, and how would it serve this purpose? If it is meant to show the "diversity" of the BOT's (which I assume means island, island, island, island, snowy wasteland) how does it show this? If there is a gallery, it needs criteria. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Really its a none issue as far as I'm concerned but if you think I was overly harsh in calling him a WP:DICK then for that I'll apologise.

I didn't compile the gallery but it served a purpose to my mind and that was to show diversity. The BOT are quite diverse, ranging from tropical islands to wind swept barren Antarctica. A gallery illustrated that neatly IMHO, in a way words can't. That is all, this is not an unreasonable position, nor an unreasonable opinion but one dismissed with little thought. For those quoting "Guidelines", thats what they are guidelines, they are not the absolute truth. Content is decided by consensus and it isn't a vote its about strength of argument. WP:IAR is a rule, guidelines aren't. If you're quoting guidelines instead of proposing an argument then you really don't get what wikipedia is about. But again I won't indulge someone in an edit war - WP:DGAF. Justin talk 21:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

That's go to be the worst apology I've ever seen, then he goes right back to the same old accuisation and hypocrisy. I think at this point the continued accusations and protestations of innocene in his own actions can can be considered baiting. Time for ANIWQA. - BilCat (talk) 06:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

New coalition government and territories.

What is going on with the new Coalition government and the current Caribbean overseas territories? Turks and Caicos protests have increased with some calls for independence. Bermuda was last year. (With a poll this year showing the populous doesn't support such moves by the gov't)[18] Anguilla is today.[19] Is the current British government perceived as anti-overseas territorial governments? CaribDigita (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Simply, no. In any case, if a territory wishes to become independent it can. The troubles in Turks and Caicos have been brewing for quite a while and local corruption is the problem there (and they really shouldn't be complaining about the British attempting to restore sound government IMO). Bermuda is heading for independence and I think everyone is readying themselves that this will happen in the near future (I'm always surprised why they aren't already independent... they sure can afford it!) - as for Anguilla, again if they feel like being independent then fine. But I don't think any of this has anything to do with the change of government in the UK! In other overseas territories the new government is seen as being more supportive than the previous one, for instance in Gibraltar (stauncher position on the Spanish claim) and St Helena (new airport financed). David (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not so sure... Anguilla and UK Governor in war of words. "I feel very disillusioned and frustrated with British administration for Anguilla. My commitment now is to press on with my programme for self determination," stated the Chief Minister to the nation last Thursday. CaribDigita (talk) 14:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
What exactly is he complaining about? Could it not just be a local politician wishing to make it big? David (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Edit: ah I see, the Governor is concerned that the Chief Minister/other Minister are abusing their positions. Another case of corruption in the Caribbean? The role of a governor is to oversee good government. I hope the people there see this and don't just listen to their local politicians. David (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Bermuda independence is unlikely anytime soon. A poll in January showed that 73% of Bermudians were opposed to independence with only 18% in favor and the remainder being undecided. http://www.royalgazette.com/article/20110128/NEWS01/701289981 One has to understand that for the most part their is little support for independence except among the crooked politicians and their cronies who are upset that the British are asking for some accountability. 24.46.236.67 (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
April 26th 2011 poll via the Royal Gazette/Mindmaps - support for Bermuda gaining independence has grown by 2% to a whopping 16% in favor. 70% remain opposed to independence. http://www.royalgazette.com/article/20110425/NEWS/704259985/1001 As I said before, I don't expect Bermuda to gain independence anytime within the next 20 years or so and even then. Cfagan1987 (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

New Map

I reverted the addition of the new map. It had the same colour for the UK and the BOT, they are separate entities and as such I consider the new map confusing. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion; I have changed the map so the colours are indentical to that of the older map; Green for the United Kingdom and Blue for the Crown Dependencies. However, if you feel the map is still confusing, feel free to prompt me with improvements. Geord0 16:35, 29 Auguest 2011 (UTC)
A minor point, Islands of Tristana da Cunha etc were previously identified individually. As you have it now Ascension and St Helena are easily confused. See below. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
With that in mind, the actual territory is called 'Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha', if - as the original map showed - they are labelled individually, that may cause confusion and imply they are all individual territories - which they are not, they collectivly make a single territory. The same can be said about South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, a single territory made up of several entities - yet not even the original map has labelled them seperate. Thanks anyway, Geord0 17:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
And you can't spell Atlantic. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Original Map
New Map

Added one request for citation "full rights" as UK citizens?

  • "Full" rights in the UK? Even without Right of abode? That sounds strange to me. Monserrations have been questioning their ability to move to the U.K. since the volcanic eruption. Many actually chose to goto America or other *former* British colonies in the Caribbean citing it was somewhat easier to get status in those places.
  • U.S. Is Ending Haven for Those Fleeing a Volcano- By NINA BERNSTEIN, New York Times (Published: August 9, 2004)
  • Sawyer, Caroline (2009). "Country report: united Kingdom" (PDF). Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies. European University Institute. 1.1 Ambiguity of terminology of rights: The scope of British nationality has shrunk from including everyone born in a vast empire at the end of the nineteenth century to excluding even some people born in the territory of the UK itself. The term 'British nationality' is still legally meaningful, but only the sub-category of 'British citizen' necessarily entails the right to enter the UK. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |deadurl=, |doibroken=, |coauthors=, |embargo=, and |month= (help)
  • Hogan, Claude E. S. (14 February 2003). "Seeking Refuge in the Mother Country: UK Maintained Strict Exclusion Policy Despite Erupting Volcano". Before the 1905 Aliens Act, which was consequent to the Report of the Royal Commission on Alien Immigration in 1903, the principle of 'ius soli' was important because a Montserratian by reason of birth within the British empire would have enjoyed not only freedom of movement to the UK but also what we now call the 'right of abode in the UK'. The Aliens Act of 1905 was part one in the statutory creation of the alien as an expanding category of people. Bearing on the usual socio-economic and public policy concerns of health, maintenance and accommodation, the Act defined the alien by certain characteristics. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |deadurl=, |doibroken=, |coauthors=, |embargo=, and |month= (help)
  • Extension of the Designation of Montserrat Under Temporary Protected Status Program [ 68 FR 39106 [FR 29-03]], US Gov't.
  • Termination of the Designation of Montserrat Under the Temporary Protected Status Program; Extension of Employment Authorization Documentation, US Gov't

A 2009 report by the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies at the European University Institute, (Florence, Italy) stated this *still* was the case at that time.

  • Sawyer, Caroline (2009). "Country report: united Kingdom" (PDF). Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies. European University Institute. The historical origins of the ambiguities are generally easier to trace than the contemporary meaning of the terms: for example, although attempts not only to cede political power in the colonies but also to shed responsibility for their populations have been going on for many decades, it is still possible that a non-British person may have greater rights as a settled person to live in the UK than an overseas-based British national, who may have no right to enter the UK at all and may appear therefore to be British but be effectively stateless. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |deadurl=, |doibroken=, |coauthors=, |embargo=, and |month= (help)

CaribDigita (talk) 08:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I was under the understanding that the 2002 Act, gave citizens of BOT full British citizenship. Is that wrong, I'm confused. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
[20] Any person who, immediately before the commencement of this section, is a British overseas territories citizen shall, on the commencement of this section, become a British citizen. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I suggest you check your own sources eg U.S. Is Ending Haven for Those Fleeing a Volcano notes that they have had right of abode since 2002. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
In the article WCM just likned to, it states: "Citizens of British overseas territories were not automatically entitled to British residency until 2002. The Monserratians in the United States do not automatically have British passports." That appears to be were the confusion stems from, as these Monserratians in the US fled the volcano in the late 1990s. - BilCat (talk) 10:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
If you relocate to another country and take up citizenship there you lose the right to British Citizenship, I'm not 100% convinced the article is correct that Monserratians in the US do not automatically have British passports - they do have that right. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
How long do the old BOT passports last for? They may have had to reply for British Citizenship after 2002. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
No different to UK Passports, 10 years. I believe its an International Agreement rather than national legislation. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

16 territories

16 @26:06 not 14. Maybe someone you can phone Rosindell and ask him where he got the number from and whether he is able to list the 16.I am sure he is pruvy to prvilidged information and wikipedia should reflect that, and not the official, lower number. Now what could the be two missing OTs. 1000 point for the correct response. U2r2h (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Territory - Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos), British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands, South Georgia and the Sandwich Islands, Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia, Saint Helena, Ascension Island, Tristan da Cunha Crown Dependency - Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney, Sark SO IT IS 16 U2r2h (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC).
No, it's 14. "Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha" is the name of a single territory; until recently it was known more simply as "Saint Helena and Dependencies". Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 00:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC).

Some BOT articles say they are a territory of the EU.... WRONG

Someone has started putting on BOT articles that they are territories of the EU. WHich is totally wrong. They are not even strictly part of the EU, they just have a special relationship with it. We need to take this down, as it will confuse people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.198.190 (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I tried to fix this too. I had created a template about economies of dependent territories (of EU states) and the terminology got changed over the years to something like economies of outer regions of the EU. I too stated this was incorrect because E.U. law does not pertain to BOTS. The U.K. has shielded them in the past pretty well. The BOTS act like mini-kingdoms of their own with their own immigration laws and all. Dutch and French territories are a lot more integrated these days than the BOTS. CaribDigita (talk) 07:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Don't BOTs receive economic assistance from the EU Development Fund? Cfagan1987 (talk) 04:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
A lot of countries do. (Besides UKOTs.) I know Barbados gov't works with the E.C.'s office (for the entire Eastern Caribbean) on that island.[21] CaribDigita (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
'I started the post' They are not part of the EU and this needs to be changed. What can we do about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.163.52 (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Overseas_Territories/Archive_1&oldid=1091451070"