Talk:Scotland/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Scotland. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Heraldry and Lyon

Should discuss Scottish heraldry (here or in separate article)? --Daniel C. Boyer 20:59, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There should be a link in this article, either to the Heraldry article or to the Lord Lyon King of Arms article since the Scots have the oldest fully operational heraldic system in the world. However there's no need for a full discussion in this article. A mention and a link would be enough. -- Derek Ross

I note this article includes the "Royal arms of the United Kingdom as used in Scotland" (i.e., L.R. 1&4), rather than "Scottish Arms Classic". Shouldn't this article use the latter, for consistency with the article on England, and for football-stand flag-waving familiarity? (Perhaps with a link to Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland for the sake of memorialising said trivia.) Alai 08:04, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I presume by "Scottish Arms Classic" you mean the arms known familiarly as the 'Lion Rampant'. Personally I enjoy the complexity of the royal arms, and Scotland has never been known for following an English lead! Berek 12:42, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Brutal repression" and NPOV

"which made a comeback through immigration after it was brutally repressed in the 16th to late 18th centuries" doesn't read like NPOV to me. Can anyone who knows the history comment or recast? Marnanel 18:00, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

NPOV means writing in such a way that no arguable statements are used -- not so that no offence is caused (that would be writing in a PC manner rather than an NPOV manner). Looking at the above phrase in this light, the correct question to ask is "Who disagrees with the truth of the above phrase and why ?". If the answer is that no one disagrees then the phrase is NPOV. If someone disagrees because they believe that no repression took place then the phrase is POV (or they are wrong). Likewise if someone disagrees because they believe that repression took place but it was gentle then the phrase is POV (or they are wrong). On the other hand if someone believes that severe repression took place but dislikes the use of the word brutal rather than severe, stern or robust, that's more of a PC issue than an NPOV one. Certainly most criminal acts were dealt with in a pretty brutal manner during this time period and membership of the RC church was very much seen as a criminal act or actually was a criminal act in Scotland at that time so I personally feel that the phrase is justified. -- Derek Ross 18:36, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There was still a substantial Catholic population in the Western Isles in the 18th century (see the Statistical Accounts). Certainly Catholics were martyred in the 16th C but toleration became the norm from the mid-17th C onwards. Catholics (and other non-conformists (not to mention atheists, Jews, Muslims etc)) suffered discrimination of course until well into the 19th C. This hardly marks out Scotland as unique at the time.

Exile

Understood. -- Derek Ross | Talk

Don't give up so easily - if you can find evidence that catholicism was repressed brutally I'd be interested to see it!

Anti-catholic feeling did build up in the 19th C and still has an influence on Scottish politics - I remember some controversy over local politics in Coatbridge not long ago but details have slipped my mind. Orangeism is stronger in Scotland than it is in England (outside Liverpool anyway).

Exile

1650s & 1660s -- Oliver Cromwell's government, 1680s -- replacement of the Catholic King by a Protestant, 1690s until 1740s -- Jacobites (Catholic) v Hanoverians (Protestant). During this whole time period, the Government saw Catholics as potentially subversive and acted accordingly. If you can find evidence that Catholicism was tolerated benignly I'd be interested to see it! From what I can see, toleration didn't begin to appear until the end of the eighteenth century. And even when it began to appear in legal form via measures like The Catholic Relief Act of 1780, it could still cause major riots. The nineteenth century is very much the time when anti-Catholic feeling dropped in most of the country compared with what it had been in the previous two. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:10, 2004 Jul 6 (UTC)

Not quite as simple as that - Episcopalians were subject to similar disabilities to Catholics in the 18th C.

Of course. -- Derek Ross | Talk

In the 19th C, whilst OFFICIALLY tolerated, catholicism came to be identified with Irish immigration and thus a target for bigotry amongst "ordinary" protestants. The Orange movement only really got going in the 19th C.

Exile

I'm not disagreeing with that but during the 16th-18th centuries it was worse because not only did ordinary Protestants hate Catholics (from the Perth riot of 1559 until the Gordon riot of 1782), the Government also hated them and legislated accordingly. It did not do this to nearly the same extent during the 19th and 20th centuries, so the life of a Catholic, while still relatively unpleasant was much easier than it had been. Repression was "brutal" and offficially sanctioned before the nineteenth century. The fact that it was not so during and after the 19th century is one big reason why the Orange movement gained momentum during that time. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:47, 2004 Jul 6 (UTC)

National anthem

Someone's changed the old part where it said "Unofficial: Flower of Scotland, Scotland the Brave, Scots Wha Hae and others" to "Flower of Scotland". (They've also made similar changes on cy:.) Is this just random vandalism, or has there been any move, say by the Scottish Executive, to make this the official anthem? Marnanel 23:29, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

Neither the UK nor any part of the UK has an "official" national anthem. The Scottish executive hasn't change that so the text should be put back the way it was. I'm inclined to believe that it's not so much vandalism as misplaced enthusiasm on the part of fans of the excellent Corries. -- Derek Ross 07:12, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Great, that's what I thought. I didn't want to revert before asking, though, in case I'd missed any interesting constitutional developments. Marnanel 14:38, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

Despite being a patriotic (adopted) Scot I can't help feeling FoS is a mournful dirge, set as it is around the battle of Flodden.

Exile

<sigh>, It isn't my first choice for anthem either but as an adopted Scot, you should be aware that it is about the battle of Bannockburn (a major Scottish victory), not the battle of Flodden (a major Scottish defeat). The song about the aftermath of the Flodden battle is not Flower of Scotland but rather The Floo'ers o' the Forest. It is a dirge (a mourning song) not an anthem (a triumphal song) and can be haunting when sung properly. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:02, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)

The Executive does have the power to give Scotland a national anthem, and is considering it, but there has been no decision. Zhengfu

Just as an added note, the "accepted anthem" before Flower of Scotland seems to have been Will ye no' come back again, at least according to a tangential comment on nationalism in Jennings' The Queen's Government (1954). I confess to being completely unfamiliar with this... Shimgray | talk | 12:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Flag graphics

I'm not entirely sure where to ask this question, but since Talk:Scotland seems quite active: there are several pages in the Malt Whisky wikiproject which link to the image File:Scotland flag medium.png which does not exist. Could someone maybe whip up a medium sized version of the Image:Flag_of_Scotland.png graphic being used on this page for them to use? Stormie 01:08, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

Better to ask the wiki to do it for you with something like [[Image:Flag of Scotland.png|150px]], I think. Marnanel 01:16, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough, I see that the magic of the wiki has produced an actual new version of the image, it's not just sending the full-size one down and expecting your browser to resize it. You learn something new every day! Thanks! Stormie 01:19, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately the colour is still pretty far out (at least on my screen). It's supposed to be a dark "navy" blue to represent the colour of the evening sky. It's a much darker blue than the "royal" blue background of the Union flag. The current colour on the image seems nearer to light blue though. -- Derek Ross 07:32, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The question of whether it's navy blue or sky blue is at Flag of Scotland, where we also have the navy blue Image:Flag of Scotland Pantone300.png. Which of these to use in more general articles (like this one, and all the whisky ones which use the flag) is an interesting question. Why do you think the navy blue is more correct? Marnanel 14:38, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

Because that's the one that I see flying from flagpoles in Scotland. I have never seen one as light as the one here. The Pantone 300 looks much closer to the mark. -- Derek Ross 22:27, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Heraldically azure is any colour as long as its blue, and because the flag is blazoned azure a saltire argent neither the reigning nor immediate past Lords Lyon have made any ruling on the shade.

In 1998 the Flag Institute recommended Pantone © 300, but Pantone © 299 is nearest to the bleu celeste often used in making the flag. United Nations blue (Pantone © 279) is also widely used in manufacture.

Now that the Scottish Executive have spent over £300,000 on consultants to discover that the saltire is a well known symbol of Scotland they will pronounce officially on the shade. --garryq 16:19, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Parliament urged them last year to adopt Pantone 300 (petition 512) (BBC news). Marnanel 16:45, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm a wee bit confused. If the Union flag is the unity of the St Georges Cross and St Andrews and Patricks saltires then why should the St Andrews flag be a shade lighter than in the Union flag? Shouldn't they be the same? Is that not the point of the Union flag?

Education, Art, Mackie

Removed the following from the Education section:

One of the most widely-known Scottish historians, Dr. David Alexander Thomson Mackie, is best known for his treatment of 18th Century Scottish portaiture, especially that of Raeburn.

It could go in a separate article(s) on Mackie, and/or Scottish historiography and/or Scottish art history, but I feel it does not belong in a generalised overview of Education in Scotland. Pedant17 01:05, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Map

Any way that the map from England (which shows England highlighted in a map of the UK) could be modified so as to be used here instead of the one highlighting Scotland on a map of all of Europe? john 05:49, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

If you go back far enough in the edit history you will see it was like that originally. Image:UKScotland.png Morwen 06:44, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Alba

The reason for the SAMPA was that it is not obvious to most English readers that Alba has three syllables nor that the b denotes a sound similar to English p. English speakers are often misled by Gaelic spelling and SAMPA is useful to keep them on the right lines. The alternative is to put up with grating mispronunciations like Kate-lynn for Caitlin instead of the correct Kathleen as English speakers automatically apply English pronunciation rules to Gaelic spelling and come up with the wrong sounds. -- Derek Ross

Two points:

1) this is not the article on Alba - I see no particular reason for providing the pronunciation in SAMPA here. 2) The Alba page already provided a pronunciation before the SAMPA was added there. 3) SAMPA is not a particularly well known pronunciation system. I'd certainly never seen or heard of it before coming across it in this article. I think we can provide a pronunciation guide without using such a weird looking pronunciation system - how many people really have any idea what those symbols mean? john k 03:47, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

I accept the first and second of your two points (although on further reflection this is the article on Alba, and on Scotia, and on Caledonia, and on Ecosse, and on Schottland, etc. since these are all just different names for the same thing). As for the third <?>, we use SAMPA on the Wikipedia because the better-known alternative, the IPA, cannot be displayed unless appropriate fonts have been downloaded. Even if they have been, people are no more likely to know the exact pronunciations of the IPA symbols than they are to know the exact pronunciations of the SAMPA symbols. So in either case an interested reader will need to refer to the appropriate pronunciation definitions. English "phonetic" spelling is ruled out because it is so dependent on accent (many English-speakers believe that Bach rhymes with Bark, for instance). That being so we decided to use the SAMPA system rather than IPA because SAMPA can be displayed on most PC's without installing a new font and gives an exact pronunciation guide. -- Derek Ross

I think it should be here. Alba is a redirect page in denial. SAMPA and IPA are, for the layman (i.e. me) entirely useless, and indeed the gaelic spelling is worse than useless for pronunciation. I wouldn't, however, be at all averse to a link to a wav/ogg of someone saying the word in question. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:24, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Outwith!

OK, my apologies for removing what is apparently valid British English... but that word isn't in my dictionary. Can you tell me what it means? </feels very ignorant> -Lethe

from the oed: Without; outside of, out from Lethe

Sorry if I seemed harsh. "outside" isn't quite it - it kinda means "outside the confines of", or "outside the domain of", at least in this context. I hesitate to put "outside of", as two prepositions in a row seems kinda grating. "without" would be technically correct, but the resulting sentence doesn't seem quite right to me. Maybe we need a venn diagram :) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:12, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

'Outwith' is not used outside of Scotland. 'Apart from' or 'other than' would work in this context, I think. Morwen - Talk 14:16, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As does outwith. Many Scots live outwith Scotland and we use outwith without hesitation, so it is used outwith Scotland. I've never had anybody query me on its meaning and that meaning is pretty clear in this sentence. I see no reason to change it. If you want to change Wikipedia to Standard English, there are plenty of Americanisms to take up your time but I'd suggest that you accept minor national variants in English spelling, vocabulary and grammar. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:25, 2004 Jun 27 (UTC)

I think it's a fine thing to expect to be allowed to use "Scottishisms" in the Scotland article. I certainly wouldn't want to be the one to whom fell the task of replacing all Americanisms with Standard English. However, I was a little confused by this word, and it wasn't in my (American) dictionary, although you're right, I guess i can get the meaning from context right? The Catholic Church is the largest Church after, or outside of the Kirk. What if we made the word a link to its definition in en.wiktionary? Perhaps that would be a bad precedent, linking every word that isn't grammar school vocab to a dictionary... -Lethe 00:40, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

I think either outwith or without would be fine; two consecutive prepostions would, indeed, grate rather.

James F. (talk) 19:35, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ah, how much better it would be if the rest of the world had "outwith" - places like St. Paul-without-the-Walls wouldn't sound so dilapidated :) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:21, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

St Paul furth the Walls surely, although we may need to wait for Parliament's Act anent church names to make the change :)

DSL is one of several Scots language dictionaries online in case any more perfectly sensible "Scottishisms" creat problems. --garryq 01:52, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think it is wikipedia policy to allow regional English usage in articles about regional topics, and considered bad form to edit them out for no other reason. This usage is a little tricky, since it is seldom enough used to cause confusion among non-Scottish speaking people, but still, I think it should stay. It was the consensus a few years ago, no? It was removed in this edit. I am restoring it. -Lethe | Talk July 2, 2005 05:41 (UTC)

Can I just point out that most English speakers make a distinction between inside and within? "Inside the home" means physically in the building, while "within the home" means in a family milieu. Within is more abstract. That's a richness of language. Why would anyone NOT want to enrich their language by distinguishing outside and outwith? I am Scots, but I use lots of words which 20 years ago were regarded as American. These boundaries are not fixed, and words don't need visas. So let this one thrive. --Doric Loon 2 July 2005 07:48 (UTC)

outwith also appears in Wikipedia articles "Gypsy Evangelical Movement", "Linden, Guyana", "Isolated radio churches", "Foreign Terrorist Organisation" and "Earth mysteries", which dont really relate to Scotland, so it cant just be Scottish people who use this word,

Outwith, depending on your position of Scots, is a Scots and not an English word. If you believe Scots to be a distinct language from English, then it's a Scots word, however it is used commonly in Scottish Standard English. -- said somebody

Not really. The Scots word for outwith is ootwi. Outwith is an English word whether Scots is a distinct language or not. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

My apologies; I hadn't realized that this was already a topic of discussion. Derek Ross, I've seen you use outwith in many talk page discussions and it never fazed me; I (correctly) figured that it was just another way of saying "without" (in the secondary sense of that word; see St-Pauls-without-the-Walls reference above for an example). But it seemed to me that there was no real reason to use it on the actual article page if it's going to confuse readers. We all know that the Wikipedia has a policy of using British language on British-related pages and American language on American-related pages; the question is how far that goes and just how common or widespread this usage is. I don't think I've ever seen it outwith your posts; and if it's commonly used, I must say that, American though I am, it surprises me. Indeed, I confess to a sneaking suspicion that you use it not because it comes naturally but because it seems cool. However, I readily admit I have no right to do so. :)

At any rate, the dilemma is this: in retrospect, perhaps I was being hasty in removing it. On the other hand, I don't see anything wrong with my substitute preposition ("RC church is second largest after CofS"); and it is arguably clearer. Doops | talk 05:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

PS -- what are its origins? I mean, "without" is parallel to "within"; so who decided to stop saying "without" and instead say "outwith" ? Doops | talk 05:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Geography

Fair enough for the edit immediately after mine (11-July-2004 by Derek Ross) removing Dundee from the list of Central Belt cities. I kind of though that if it was in the Central Belt then it was only just in the Central Belt. However, I am left wondering what the original 3 of 5 cities were, assuming Stirling isn't one of them as it was the most recent town in Scotland to become a city. Does anyone have any ideas? --Colin Angus Mackay 01:17, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure, Colin. It's arguable whether Dundee is Central Belt or not and so perhaps the original writer was thinking of it as one of the three. But I think that what we have now is more accurate. Whatever the original writer meant, I would say that Dundee is really in the south of the Northeast. As an Angus resident for over twenty years, I always thought that you had to cross the Tay to get into Central Belt territory. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:47, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)

And, by the way, it's good to see another Scot editing the Wikipedia. There aren't enough of us. Cheers -- Derek Ross

Scots law and legal tender

I'm sure I remember seeing something to the effect that Bank of England pound notes, when such things existed, were legal tender in Scotland, and that pound and two pound coins still are. Yet this page says that Scots law has no concept of legal tender. Do we have any references for that? Marnanel 01:17, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

quoth the Bank of England:

The current series of Bank of England notes are legal tender in England and Wales, 
although not in Scotland or Northern Ireland, where the only currency carrying legal 
tender status for unlimited amounts is the one pound and two pound coins.

[1] -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:20, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds like what I remembered reading. So the article's wrong to say that "Scots law lacks the concept" [of legal tender]? Marnanel 01:22, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Subtly wrong, but in a complicated way that I defy anyone to succinctly explain. It gets more complex still here. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:24, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

1603

Scotland was not united with England in 1603. What happened was that the king of Scotland inherited the English throne (because the English Royal family had died out) James VI was now king of Scotland (James VI) and King of England (James I) They were still totally separate kingdoms with their own parliaments, it is just that they happened to be ruled by the same person (2 kingdoms but only 1 king). James VI/I also ruled them as separate kingdoms and had to make individual decisions about the governance of each country, for example he would not have been able to make a law which applied to both countries he would have had to make them separately using each country's respective parliaments. I think the issue of kings ruling over more than one country was quite common in Europe (eg. Spanish princes/kings ruling over the Netherlands) but this does not mean that they are united. Scotland was united with England in 1707, when England and Scotland ceased to become separate kingdoms and were replaced by the United Kingdom of 'Great Britain'--Cap 12:22, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You have a point. The current opening paragraph is a little confusing. The use of the word united was intended to indicate that the two countries were part of a personal union (Union of the Crowns) rather than a political union, (Union of the Parliaments) but I can see that it should be reworded to make this clearer. -- Derek Ross | Talk

Country or Nation

I personally don't mind whether the word "nation" or "country" is used to describe Scotland since I don't think that either implies sovereignty particularly. The distinction is more "country of Scotland" as opposed to "nation of Scots" -- ie territory or people. The word "state" is the sovereignty implier to my mind as in the "Scottish state" or the "modern nation-state". However I don't like the pointless switching that's currently going on. Please discuss the pros and cons of this change before endlessly remaking it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:44, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

It's a nation and a country, but not a state. This article is about the country, not the Scottish nation, so it should be 'country'. That's how I've always heard it referred to. --Randwicked 13:00, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Standard usage on Wikipedia seems to be that "country" implies sovereingty, "nation" implies ethnic cohesiveness, and "state" is rarely used due to ambiguity with non-sovereign states in federations.

James F. (talk) 13:40, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is bizarre usage, though, since "country" doesn't imply sovereignty in actual English usage. State is the word which implies sovereignty, and non-sovereign states (as in the US, Australia, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, perhaps Germany and Austria, depending on how Land is translated) are clearly special cases (and fairly infrequent ones - do any countries besides the ones I listed even have states?) The term "sovereign state", at any rate, leaves no ambiguity. We certainly should try to change this oddness of using "country" to imply sovereignty, which is purely idiosyncratic. john k 19:42, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Very sensible comments, John. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:46, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)

I have to disagree. The present Wikipedia article country uses the the "sovereign state" definition, and according to Merriam-Webster, this is valid, and not a "bizarre usage". Regardless of whether the word "country" should refer to a sovereign state or not, it is at the very least an ambiguous word, and should therefor be avoided in this context. In my entire life I have never heard anyone refering to a non-sovereign territory as a "country" (outside this article's introduction paragraph), that usage is an idiosyncrasy to me. But why should we "try to change" things here by using the word in what you see as its proper context, when we could just as easily choose to use a word that is totally unambiguous instead?

I think we should remove the word "country" from the introduction. Saying that Scotland is one of the four current Home Nations of the United Kingdom, as well as noting it was formerly a completely sovereign kingdom, will suffice. —Gabbe 13:34, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

I think this whole area of nomenclature needs clarifying. It's not only within the UK that it causes controversy. Is Ireland a country, a nation, or one country and part of another, two nations or what?

Ireland is a land mass which contains one nation and part of another. Ireland is part of the name of both. AlMac 6 July 2005 10:04 (UTC)

What is the Souix nation? Is it part of the American nation?

The Sioux nation existed in history, hust as Scotland was a nation in history. They are a people with a heritage. It is not unusual for many people to use terminology that may be inaccurate as far as legalisms are concerned. AlMac 6 July 2005 10:04 (UTC)

Is there a Jewish nation, an Israeli nation, a Palestinian nation, a Roma (gypsy) nation? Is the Palestinian territory a country? What is Taiwan - a country, nation, state or none of these?

Isn't Israel the Jewish State? AlMac 6 July 2005 10:04 (UTC)

Taiwan is like a rebellion against the People's Republic of China, in which the central government seeks a peaceful settlement. The people of Taiwan also want a peaceful outcome, but there is more than one vision of how that future might appear. AlMac 6 July 2005 10:04 (UTC)

How about this

- A country is a geographical division. It generally describes an area governed by a recognised state. It is sometimes used to describe subdivisions of a terrirory governed by a state, particularly where two or more former states merged to form a new state. So, a country can contain other countries. Disputed territories may be regarded by the disputants as parts of different countries.

- A nation describes a group of people united by a common ethnicity or history, or a grouping of smaller units such as tribes or clans for a common purpose. However the term is sometimes used as a synonym for "country". Therefore a nation may contain all or part of another nation.

- A state is a government exercising sovereignty over a geographical area. Generally, a state must achieve diplomatic recognition by the international community before being generally regarded as a state.

Where does that leave us:

British Isles : geographical term. Controversial in Ireland. United Kingdom of GB and NI: country. state. kingdom. Great Britain : two senses (1) geographical term - the island of Great Britian (2) country - constituent of the United Kingdom of GB and Northern Ireland = Island of GB and offshore Islands, but not Ireland. Britain/British : nation - status disputed. Ulster Unionists self-describe as "British". "British" often used to describe inhabitants and instutions of the UK generally, eg "British Passport", "British Government", though many Irish Nationalists in Northern Ireland do not accept the designation, and many English, Scottish and Welsh people don't either, preferring their own national labels, either instead of or in addition. Some immigrants accept the designation "British", "British Jews", "British Asians" etc: others reject the "British" label. England: country (former Kingdom). widely regarded as a nation. Some English people prefer to be seen as "British": others use both terms interchangably. Foreigners often use England and English in place of the UK and British. has own established church. England and Wales: administrative entity. UK Parliament legislation refers to "E and W". E and W share a legal system and are administered in a similar way, but are regarded as separate for many purposes. Wales: country and principality. however, when there is no living Prince of Wales (eldest son of the sovereign) Wales is without a Prince. nation. not part of England for ecclesiastical purposes (no established church) Monmouthshire: county. In ACt of Union (England and Wales) 1536 counted as part of England. Recently redesignated as part of Wales. Scotland: country, former Kingdom. nation. own established church and legal system. Berwick upon Tweed: on English/Scottish border. Part of England but for some purposes was regarded as a separate territory. Ireland: geographical term (island of Ireland). Former Kingdom. nation (but Ulster Unionists consider themselves part of the British nation, not the Irish). one state (Republic of Ireland) plus part of another (UK). Republic of Ireland: state Northern Ireland: territory (possibly country?), sometimes known as a "province" but actually Ulster is a province and NI consists of 6 of the 9 counties of Ulster. The status of NI was in dispute for a period when the R of I claimed sovereignty over it. Now the R of I seeks a united Ireland as an aspiration. Some Irish nationalists refuse to recognise NI as part of the UK and see it in a similar light to the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Sometimes seen as a nation????? Ulster, Connacht, Leinster, Munster: provinces of Ireland Isle of Man. geographical term. UK territory, but not part of the UK (no seats in Parliament). nation. Channel Islands: like Isle of Man Cornwall: county (not country). duchy (not coterminous with county). some see Cornwall as a nation.

I do see a pattern. A country is a noun. A nation is an adjective. If I can describe myself as part of the "x" nation - Scottish, British, Irish, English, Manx, Cornish - then such a nation exists. However nations are not mutually exclusive. I may regard myself as British as well as Scottish. Others may describe me as British, English, Scottish or whatever depending on various criteria.

Well, that was difficult. I've tried to make it NPOV but no doubt I've failed. I haven't even gone into the various claims monarchs made to France!

138.253.102.162 11:28, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)