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

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?

mike65

re India/Canada confusion by Brendog

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

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??

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"

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.

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.

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.

Nulty

Because people have more important things to worry about?

Iwasfrozen

I say Britain...

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

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...

ejmaztec

I say potato

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

NoHornJan

LordSutch wrote: »

Well not when Queen Victoria visited here in 1900, .

That was inside the pale.

Iwasfrozen

NoHornJan wrote: »

That was inside the pale.

The pale didn't exist in 1900.

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...

NoHornJan

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The pale didn't exist in 1900.

All right! Kingstown. Near enough?

dlofnep

I've never referred to Britain as the UK. I've always referred to each country individually. "The UK" feels weird to me. When I grew up, all I ever heard was "Over in England" or "Over in Britain".. "The UK" seems to be gaining popularity in the last few years.. I spoke to a few lads about this a while back - the younger ones said the UK, but the older ones said Britain/England.

bnt

changes wrote: »

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

No - the Acts of Union (1707) came about for quite complicated reasons, including economic factors: Scotland was near-bankrupt after the failed Darian Scheme to colonise Panama and make it a trading hub (the Dubai of its day).

Union wasn't forced on Scotland militarily, and it had to get through the Scottish Parliament, but many MPs of the day were expecting to benefit financially, so it passed. It put Scottish MPs in the House of Commons, Scottish Peers in the House of Lords, and a lot of money flowed north - a lot like the way Ireland has benefited from the European Union.

But if I may get back to the original question: since England is much larger in population than each of the other provinces, I can see how e.g. Americans can make that mistake. The UK is the home of the English language, so it's "England" ... except when it's not. By the end of the 18th Century, Scotland had gained political, scientific and cultural influence far beyond its population, a period now called the Scottish Enlightenment.

CiDeRmAn

They always seemed freely interchangeable, UK, Britain, Great Britain, and I still find myself saying Britain despite meaning England...

I guess our point of view is coloured by our recent history, I wonder if the difference between the UK provinces of Wales, Scotland and England was more obvious when we were part of the UK, prior to the formation of the republic?

Conversely I have had business with English and, more surprisingly, Manx people who don't know the difference between the enclave of Ulster and the Irish republic, thinking Ireland as one homogeneous entity, which is interesting...

And from friends of mine who are Welsh and Scottish, and Northern Irish protestant, they certainly find it insulting to be called English in error, and even aren't terribly taken with being referred to as British either.

The romance of being part of the empire is well and truly departed methinks.

mike65

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Conversely I have had business with English and, more surprisingly, Manx people who don't know the difference between the enclave of Ulster and the Irish republic, thinking Ireland as one homogeneous entity, which is interesting...

Hmmmm.

dlofnep

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Conversely I have had business with English and, more surprisingly, Manx people who don't know the difference between the enclave of Ulster and the Irish republic, thinking Ireland as one homogeneous entity, which is interesting...

Well, many Irish people feel the same way.

Conversely, many people believe that the Isle of Man is in the UK - which it isn't.

Fratton Fred

NoHornJan wrote: »

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...

Well, as you are from Dun Laoghaire, he wasn't strictly "Our" King was he? he would have liked to have been, but that's how he met his end.

Melange

I tend to say "England" or "Britain" instead of "The UK" for one reason: they simply sound nicer on the ear.

NoHornJan

dlofnep wrote: »

many people believe that the Isle of Man is in the UK.

They should be given the birch...:)

Fratton Fred

It does make me smile when I hear people (Regularly) say that they are catching the ferry to England and will be staying cardiff.

NoHornJan

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Well, as you are from Dun Laoghaire, he wasn't strictly "Our" King was he? he would have liked to have been, but that's how he met his end.

Sorry I'm only a first generation blow-in. I was trying to wave accross the bay to him this morning at a quarter past ten. Somebody told me I just missed him...:D