nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

darkman2

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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).

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.

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.

Sykk

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

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?

Brendog

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

biko

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

Kasabian

Sykk wrote: »

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

Cos they're Irish.

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"....

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??

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

Fratton Fred

Brendog wrote: »

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

chin_grin

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

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

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.

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....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.