Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Why do some say "England" as opposed to the "UK"?

  • 18-08-2010 9:22am
    #1
    darkman2
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,632 ✭✭✭


    Just curious about this. When people are obviously talking about the UK sometimes some say "England". But whenever this country has a beef with the UK to me that includes Scotland and Wales aswell. I can gaurantee you there are much more angry Unionists which hate the ROI in both Wales and Scotland then there are in England - England is very benign by comparison to the militancy you will get in Scotland for example if your in certain areas and they find out your Irish and a Catholic.


    To me England is nowhere near as bad in general when it comes to the dinosaurs you find in the "regions". So why do people single out England all the time? It's not actually the English that are keeping the farcical "Union" going - very many of them want out and not just for financial reasons anymore. The problem is in Scotland, Wales and the North and this twisted supremicist Unionism/Protestantism you come across. And you do come across it when you visit Scotland. Not really in England though. If anything Unionists in these areas have a habit of threathening England - the Northern types have always done that.

    In fact we have far more in common with England then they do IMO. I think the focus on England is misguided when we think about the UK. The English are sound.


«1

Comments

  • #2
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    darkman2 wrote: »
    Just curious about this. When people are obviously talking about the UK sometimes some say "England". But whenever this country has a beef with the UK to me that includes Scotland and Wales aswell. I can gaurantee you there are much more angry Unionists which hate the ROI in both Wales and Scotland then there are in England - England is very benign by comparison to the militancy you will get in Scotland for example if your in certain areas and they find out your Irish and a Catholic.


    To me England is nowhere near as bad in general when it comes to the dinosaurs you find in the "regions". So why do people single out England all the time? It's not actually the English that are keeping the farcical "Union" going - very many of them want out and not just for financial reasons anymore. The problem is in Scotland, Wales and the North and this twisted supremicist Unionism/Protestantism you come across. And you do come across it when you visit Scotland. Not really in England though. If anything Unionists in these areas have a habit of threathening England - the Northern types have always done that.

    In fact we have far more in common with England then they do IMO. I think the focus on England is misguided when we think about the UK.

    Because our football team is the best (Of a currently bad bunch).


  • #3
    WindSock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,239 ✭✭✭✭WindSock


    England is the powerhouse of the UK. And it is easier to say. I am guessing out of laziness really. Plus people love to moan about 'The English'
    Similar with the US and America I suppose.


  • #4
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    I disagree, darkman2. My dad's best friend is a catholic rangers fan and I married an irishman raised catholic - no-one batted an eye-lid. Outside of the minority extremists around celtic park and ibrox I haven't seen any sectarianism, or anything other than support for the irish and a playful disdain for the neighbours south of the border. :)


  • #5
    Sykk
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,327 ✭✭✭Sykk


    Why do people call Northern Irish people "Irish" is the bigger question!


  • #6
    KungPao
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,785 ✭✭✭KungPao


    Why do some English people say that Ireland is part of the UK?

    Why do some English people say The British Lions?

    Why did I have toast for breakfast instead of cereal?


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Brendog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,976 ✭✭✭Brendog


    Technically the UK is all of Englands colonised lands including Canada and India....


  • #8
    biko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,220 ✭✭✭✭biko


    I just like to be specific. I also say "I'm going to New York", not "I'm going to America".


  • #9
    Kasabian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,688 ✭✭✭Kasabian


    Sykk wrote: »
    Why do people call Northern Irish people "Irish" is the bigger question!

    Cos they're Irish.


  • #10
    Brendog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,976 ✭✭✭Brendog


    Brendog wrote: »
    Technically the UK is all of Englands colonised lands including Canada and India....


    Just after realising I said "England" instead of "UK"....


  • #11
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    KungPao wrote: »
    Why do some English people say that Ireland is part of the UK?
    because part of it is
    KungPao wrote: »
    Why do some English people say The British Lions?
    because the British Lions are a commonly used phrase. Plus, the British and irish Lions is a bit of a mouthful.
    KungPao wrote: »
    Why did I have toast for breakfast instead of cereal?
    because you ran out of milk??


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    thebigbiffo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,941 ✭✭✭thebigbiffo


    it was the 'england' of old that were the imperialists, not so much the scottish or welsh...so people of the world just associated their bad feelings abouts the UK and the british empire with the english only.

    i'll agree that in modern times the english are actually sound enough, and most of the arseholes that harp after the old days are from the old school unionist mould


  • #13
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Brendog wrote: »
    Technically the UK is all of Englands colonised lands including Canada and India....

    :confused:


  • #14
    chin_grin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,808 ✭✭✭✭chin_grin


    Politics, geography and history up a tree,
    K.I.L.L.I.N.G.
    something something something....................


  • #15
    Auvers
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,987 ✭✭✭Auvers


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    because the British Lions are a commonly used phrase. Plus, the British and irish Lions is a bit of a mouthful.

    maybe in the UK it is, but to most Irish rugby fans its always been "The Lions" and nothing more


  • #16
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,434 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    KungPao wrote: »
    Why do some English people say that Ireland is part of the UK?

    Why do some English people say The British Lions?

    Why did I have toast for breakfast instead of cereal?
    Becuase the general population of England do not give a fiddlers f*** about Ireland and the irish. Not in a bad way at all, they just don't give a ****. In the same way we generally don't care about Luxemburg, or uraguay...even the english people of irish decent....they are ENGLISH. THe fact is we care a lot more about the English then they do about us.


  • #17
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,972 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    Brendog wrote: »
    Technically the UK is all of Englands colonised lands including Canada and India....
    Brendog wrote: »
    Just after realising I said "England" instead of "UK"....

    quite...:rolleyes:

    Anyway I've always been aware of the misuse of England, Britain and UK in this country. Its not rocket science to get right and the Irish like to pride themelves on a superior education product....


  • #18
    cyrusdvirus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,752 ✭✭✭cyrusdvirus


    I say England when i'm going to England

    I say Scotland when i'm going to Scotland

    I say the UK when I'm going to England and Wales

    I say the UK when going to Scotland and England

    I'm just perfick I am.


  • #19
    KungPao
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,785 ✭✭✭KungPao


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    because part of it is

    because the British Lions are a commonly used phrase. Plus, the British and irish Lions is a bit of a mouthful.

    because you ran out of milk??

    But not all of it.

    They are not called The British Lions anymore, so why not use the correct name?

    I have milk, but it's low-fat. Not putting that near my cereal.


  • #20
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    thebigbiffo wrote: »
    it was the 'england' of old that were the imperialists, not so much the scottish or welsh...so people of the world just associated their bad feelings abouts the UK and the british empire with the english only.

    That's not strictly true. The Scots were just as keen to have their own empire, the trouble is they were rubbish at it and nearly bankrupt the country in a failed attempt at colonising central America.

    By this time, the Kingdoms were already joined (with a scottish King on the throne) but the parliaments were seperate. The English Parliament bailed out the Scottish one, on condition that the two parliaments were merged into one, in London.

    There is an old saying that the Irish won the Empire, the Scots ran it and the English lost it.


  • #21
    changes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 959 ✭✭✭changes


    darkman2 wrote: »
    To me England is nowhere near as bad in general when it comes to the dinosaurs you find in the "regions". So why do people single out England all the time? It's not actually the English that are keeping the farcical "Union" going - very many of them want out and not just for financial reasons anymore. The problem is in Scotland, Wales and the North and this twisted supremicist Unionism/Protestantism you come across.

    How they can feel in any way supremicist when they rely on the might of another country to keep them in pocket. On their own these countries would be weak and probably quite poor.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    That's not strictly true. The Scots were just as keen to have their own empire, the trouble is they were rubbish at it and nearly bankrupt the country in a failed attempt at colonising central America.

    By this time, the Kingdoms were already joined (with a scottish King on the throne) but the parliaments were seperate. The English Parliament bailed out the Scottish one, on condition that the two parliaments were merged into one, in London.

    There is an old saying that the Irish won the Empire, the Scots ran it and the English lost it.

    Lol, I doubt you can class the 1200 people of the Darien scheme as the scots running the british empire.


  • #23
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    KungPao wrote: »
    They are not called The British Lions anymore, so why not use the correct name?
    same reason people say England when they mean UK I guess, some people just aren't all that bright:D
    KungPao wrote: »
    I have milk, but it's low-fat. Not putting that near my cereal.

    Understandable.:cool:


  • #24
    deise go deo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭deise go deo


    People from NI are refered to as Irish because they live on the Island of Ireland.

    If you want to be pedantic you could say 'Northern Irish', if you want but I dont really see the point.


  • #25
    goose2005
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,798 ✭✭✭goose2005


    Brendog wrote: »
    Technically the UK is all of Englands colonised lands including Canada and India....

    No it isn't. Scotland and England were joined under a single monarch in 1601 because Elizabeth I died childless, and the nearest heir was King James VI of Scotland. England never conquered Scotland.


  • #26
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    I thought it was 1603 - and they may have shared a monarch but england and scotland carried on as separate states until the deeply unpopular act of the unions passed at the third go in 1707.


  • #27
    bonerm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,595 ✭✭✭bonerm


    darkman2 wrote: »
    Just curious about this. When people are obviously talking about the UK sometimes some say "England". But whenever this country has a beef with the UK to me that includes Scotland and Wales aswell. I can gaurantee you there are much more angry Unionists which hate the ROI in both Wales and Scotland then there are in England - England is very benign by comparison to the militancy you will get in Scotland for example if your in certain areas and they find out your Irish and a Catholic.


    To me England is nowhere near as bad in general when it comes to the dinosaurs you find in the "regions". So why do people single out England all the time? It's not actually the English that are keeping the farcical "Union" going - very many of them want out and not just for financial reasons anymore. The problem is in Scotland, Wales and the North and this twisted supremicist Unionism/Protestantism you come across. And you do come across it when you visit Scotland. Not really in England though. If anything Unionists in these areas have a habit of threathening England - the Northern types have always done that.

    In fact we have far more in common with England then they do IMO. I think the focus on England is misguided when we think about the UK. The English are sound.

    England has stuff going for it. The "regions" don't. That's why you encounter all these bitter little idiots in them banging on about the importance of tradition and territory. People with nothing going for them usually rally behind any sort of zealous campaign they can get their hands on in order to give some sort of meaning to their meaningless little lives. Same reason most football supports are utter cretins.

    As for the England v UK thing. I think the usage is more particular to natives of that land rather than to what Irish people call it. For instance I've only ever called the place "England" "Scotland" "Wales" etc and never use the terms "UK" or "Great Britain" to refer to that particular place. By comparison you could see why for obvious reasons why a Unionist (or even a Republican) would refer to it as the UK. It adds more fuel to their (metaphorical) bonfire.


  • #28
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Lol, I doubt you can class the 1200 people of the Darien scheme as the scots running the british empire.

    No, but once the two Kingdoms were united fullly, that is when the British Empire really took off. The Scots played an enormous part in the British Empire.


  • #29
    deise go deo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭deise go deo


    goose2005 wrote: »
    No it isn't. Scotland and England were joined under a single monarch in 1601 because Elizabeth I died childless, and the nearest heir was King James VI of Scotland. England never conquered Scotland.


    Explain the Jackobite rebellions then.

    And as for Canada and India being part of the UK,
    no they arent, that would be the commonwealth.


  • #30
    changes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 959 ✭✭✭changes


    goose2005 wrote: »
    No it isn't. Scotland and England were joined under a single monarch in 1601 because Elizabeth I died childless, and the nearest heir was King James VI of Scotland. England never conquered Scotland.

    How did they come to be joined under a single monarch? England must have colonised them at some stage.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Dionysus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,420 ✭✭✭Dionysus


    chin_grin wrote: »
    Politics, geography and history up a tree,
    K.I.L.L.I.N.G.
    something something something....................

    It really doesn't bode well for your argument to link to something termed the "British Isles" as support for it.


  • #32
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    No, but once the two Kingdoms were united fullly, that is when the British Empire really took off. The Scots played an enormous part in the British Empire.

    Like when the rich scottish and english landowners forced the peasant scots to go colonise other parts of the world? :)


  • #33
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,972 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    re India/Canada confusion by Brendog

    France is a country which runs its overseas "departments" as if they were Rhone-Alps or Lorriane.


  • #34
    cyrusdvirus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,752 ✭✭✭cyrusdvirus


    Dionysus wrote: »
    It really doesn't bode well for your argument to link to something termed the "British Isles" as support for it.

    ?? I don't follow??


  • #35
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    darkman2 wrote: »
    Just curious about this. When people are obviously talking about the UK sometimes some say "England". But whenever this country has a beef with the UK to me that includes Scotland and Wales aswell. I can gaurantee you there are much more angry Unionists which hate the ROI in both Wales and Scotland then there are in England -

    Good thread this - and since returning from England I have also noticed this constant reference to the UK when people actually mean England!

    I have lost count of the number of times that people 'here' have said "I'm off to the UK for the weekend" > I mean to say "What the hell doest that mean" :confused: What mate, your'e off to London? Glasgow? Essex? the Welsh Valleys? Belfast? Durham? Holyhead? . . . the term UK is soooo imprecise as to be very very annoying (specifically from our geographical proximity), because you then have to ask them again "and where in the UK are you visiting? and the answer will always be somewhere in southern England.

    It's almost as if many Irish people equate 'the UK' with England, possibly (Southern England), although I haven't worked this out yet.

    This State is virtually surrounded by the UK, (apart from the West), if you go South East its the UK, if you go East its the UK, if you go North its the UK, if you go North east its the UK, the UK inhabits part of this island too, so to say your'e off to the UK means virtually nothing, because it could mean anything :)

    Personally if I am going to the UK, I would say "I'm going to Cardiff" for the weekend, or "I'm off to a little village in the North of England" but to just say I'm off to the UK means nothing, and always begs another question . . . . and what country in the UK are you off to?

    The UK = England, Scotland, N.Ireland & Wales.


  • #36
    Julesie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 401 ✭✭Julesie


    LordSutch wrote: »
    Good thread this - and since returning from England I have also noticed this constant reference to the UK when people actually mean England!

    Actually this thread is about the exact opposite of that. It is people who say England instead of the UK.

    While saying I'm heading to the UK for the weekend may be vague it isn't incorrect (assuming they are going somewhere in the UK). It's just like someone saying "I'm off to the States/US/America for the weekend". Not really narrowing it down but still factually correct.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    No, I disagree with you 100% :rolleyes: going to the UK is nothing like going to the US/Sates for the weekend, we are geographically a gnats nadger's breath away from the UK (part of this island is in the UK), and if one says that they are going to the UK it could mean absolutely anything, from Belfast, to London, to Glasgow, to Newry, to Durham, to Portsmouth to anywhere!!

    The States is 3000 miles away > Its all in the geoghraphy.


  • #38
    Nulty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,838 ✭✭✭Nulty


    Because people have more important things to worry about?


  • #39
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    I say Britain...


  • #40
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    changes wrote: »
    How did they come to be joined under a single monarch? England must have colonised them at some stage.

    Actually, it was more a Scottish take over of England then the other way around.

    As usual, Wikipedia is your friend. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_I_of_England


  • #41
    NoHornJan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 553 ✭✭✭NoHornJan


    Many irish people associate closely with Scotland and Wales, because like the irish they are Celts, their national language is not english and they have pride in their national language and national anthems.

    In history the oppressors were know as "na sasanaigh" which is the irish for the english. Also our ancestors had an aversion to royalty, so to say United Kingdom might have stuck in their throats...


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,231 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    I say potato


  • #43
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    NoHornJan wrote: »
    Also our ancestors had an aversion to royalty, so to say United Kingdom might have stuck in their throats...

    Well not when Queen Victoria visited here in 1900, no aversion to the Queen Mum either, not when Princess Diana died in 1997, and certainly not now with the popularity of William & Kate by many here in Ireland.


  • #44
    aidan24326
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,925 ✭✭✭aidan24326


    Brendog wrote: »
    Technically the UK is all of Englands colonised lands including Canada and India....

    No it isn't. The UK is the 'United kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. The colonised lands form the commonwealth and many of them still recognise the British monarchy, though only in a ceremonial capacity at this stage.


  • #45
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    NoHornJan wrote: »
    Also our ancestors had an aversion to royalty, so to say United Kingdom might have stuck in their throats...

    who was Brian Boru then?


  • #46
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    LordSutch wrote: »
    Well not when Queen Victoria visited here in 1900, no aversion to the Queen Mum either, not when Princess Diana died in 1997, and certainly not now with the popularity of William & Kate by many here in Ireland.
    I think he was talking about an earlier time, the idea of the divine right of kings the normons held onto was opposed by the principals of the brehon laws.


  • #47
    bonerm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,595 ✭✭✭bonerm


    LordSutch wrote: »
    Well not when Queen Victoria visited here in 1900, no aversion to the Queen Mum either, not when Princess Diana died in 1997, and certainly not now with the popularity of William & Kate by many here in Ireland.

    Indeed. Dublin even has a lovely statue of Queen Victoria. You can see it if you're ever passing down George's St. (.....in Sydney, Australia that is).

    That's how much the Irish love the Royal family these day at least.


  • #48
    NoHornJan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 553 ✭✭✭NoHornJan


    LordSutch wrote: »
    Well not when Queen Victoria visited here in 1900, .

    That was inside the pale.


  • #49
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    NoHornJan wrote: »
    That was inside the pale.
    The pale didn't exist in 1900.


  • #50
    NoHornJan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 553 ✭✭✭NoHornJan


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    who was Brian Boru then?

    He was our king trying to keep the hoards out, not inviting them in, and he didn't try to enforce an act of allegiance...


  • #51
    NoHornJan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 553 ✭✭✭NoHornJan


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    The pale didn't exist in 1900.

    All right! Kingstown. Near enough?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement