Talk:United Kingdom

Change to the opening paragraph

In the past few hours, there has been an attempt to change all the introductory paragraphs to countries which are members of the EU to just state that that are a constituent state of the EU, removing terms like "country", "sovereign state", etc. The edit was quickly reverted for United Kingdom and I reverted some others. After comments on the editor's talk page about how it was very likely to be contentious, it was suggested that a discussion be opened on either Talk:European Union or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Europe. I invite people to watch out for such discussions if they think they have something worthwhile to add to any discussion. DDStretch  (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

As you've already sensibly pointed out to them, these things are not a matter of any one person's claims as to what constitutes the "truth", even if they can find one or two people out there in the real world who agree with them. It is of course about the standard basic descriptions across reliable and authoritative sources – most of which would not dispute the sovereignty of the UK and European countries or equate EU member states to US states. (There are of course genuine broader issues here around EU membership and member-state sovereignty, but they should not lead to such simplistic assertions; and that kind of edit does nothing to illuminate them anyway). N-HH talk/edits 11:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. The absence of any authoritative or reliable sources to back up what is wanted to be put in the articles makes it seem to be a failure of WP:NPOV, and even a case of WP:OR. I think one should be able to uphold the principles of wikipedia here, no matter what one's own (possibly biased) opinions on the matter are.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Main native languages

Hi there,

it is unbelievable, but this article doesn't say which are the most common native languages. Sarcelles (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

There is already a section entitled Languages if there is something missing suggest you add what you believe is needed. Tmol42 (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like to write, that there are non-indigenuous languages including Polish and Punjabi have more native speakers in the UK than do any of the Celtic languages. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/30/polish-becomes-englands-second-language,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjabi_language#cite_note-McDonnell-21 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_language)Sarcelles (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You made that exact edit yesterday evening, but without your references.
I reverted you with this edit summary ... (Reverted good faith edits by Sarcelles (talk): Needs references before re-instating. (TW))
Now that you have them, I suggest that you replace your revision and add the references this time
Cheers! –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 18:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

wait a moment! The Guardian article doesn't say what Sarcelles is saying. It says the 2nd biggest language in England and Wales is Welsh, followed by Polish. In England alone, it's Polish. There is no comparison between Punjabi and the celtic languages at all. The language section of the article needs to be updated to bring in the importance of Polish and Asian languages, but it needs to be done accurately. DeCausa (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you DeCausa for that. I was sceptical to say the least with regard to Welsh being overtaken, which was why I made the revert yesterday. It is a very different Wales today compared to the one when I was growing up in the 1940s. There was no encouragement to speak Welsh in those post-war years.
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – 19:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It is a very great whole in the language section that there is no mention of Asian langauges and Polish. I've corrected it. In so doing I've turfed out some sentences on the origins of English and its spread via the Empire. I think in order to not lengthen the section unnecessarily it's better to lose that - which are more relevant to articles on the English language than the UK. DeCausa (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This article says (United Kingdom#Languages) "According to the 2011 census, Polish has become the second largest language spoken in England and Wales and has 546,000 speakers." This is untrue, and not what the source says. The Grauniad article says “The first ONS language figures, recorded from a survey of 56.1 million residents of England and Wales, show 546,000 speak Polish. There are still slightly more Welsh speakers in Wales at 562,000.” Therefore, according to the 2011 census, Polish is the third largest language spoken in England and Wales. As this article is about the UK, rather than about Wales or England, is this statement relevant here? In the meantime, I have deleted “and Wales” from the article. Daicaregos (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the question about Welsh speakers is skewed. In Wales, the question was "Do you speak Welsh?", not "Is Welsh your native language?" Unlike Waler, the census form in England made no provision for people to record any languages other than their native tongue".

I agree. The census figures from England are not comparable to those from Wales. Figures from Scotland and Northern Ireland are not included either. The question here is, of course: is the fact that over half a million people in England speak Polish as their main language notable in the United Kingdom article? And if so, is it stated correctly and with NPOV. I would have thought that a figure for the number of Polish speakers in the UK as a whole would be preferable. Sadly, because of the way the census was phrased in England, no census figure is available for the number Welsh speakers in the UK. Daicaregos (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

If a native language is a language native to the country, the number who speak that native language is the number who speak it irrespective of whether it was their 'mother tongue' or a language learned later in life. Therefore had the question been "Is Welsh your native language?", it would only have counted those for whom Welsh was their mother language and not also those who had acquired it later. Those speaking Polish are not speaking a native language of the UK. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes. But how do you collate figures for the UK when different questions were asked in each country. I understand the question in England was 'What is your main language?' (not 'What is your native language?'). And in Wales, the question asked was 'Do you speak Welsh?'. Any ideas? Daicaregos (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I've been following this discussion without having the time to make any comment. I think I can make one now: The simple answer to the question "how do you collate figures for the UK when different questions were asked in each country?" is a very familiar type of question for me (though not this paricular example), because I worked as a consultant in research design and statistics for many years at University, NHS, and Research Grant Awarding bodies in the UK. The simple answer, especially given that we are talking about Wikipedia, is that (a) you can only do this in a small set of circumstances, (b) you usually have to make various kinds of assumptions and/or interpretations in order to do it, and (c) therefore (the wikipedia bit) because you have to make interpretations and assumptions, as some of you have been doing, it would constitute Original Research from the point of view of Wikipedia, and that is a no-no. The question then is "How should this be dealt with?" I suppose the answer is a brief description of the problem (different questions), and a brief report of the data with the different questions clearly marked. I suppose some combination of text and footnotes would do. What do people think of this?  DDStretch  (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

(ps: the "technical terms" for these kinds of situations are that the two kinds of information are "incommensurable" or "non comparable": the problem is a major one that constantly thwarts good research design and "meta-analysis" of different pieces of research. Also, read Wikipedia policy on Synthesis, though don't be misled by thinking you only have one source here: the seprate and different questions for each country makes each census for each country distinct from each other when the corresponding questions in each ask about slightly different things: a major design flaw of the census, in my opinion..)  DDStretch  (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not a flaw in the census, it is a flaw in the census summary that was published on the internet (a bit of b*****t supplied by the government to keep the newspaper editors happy). Somebody needs to go to a major library and look at the paper copies of the census reports where they will be able to compare like with like. According to the internet reports, the census questionaires in Wales differed from those in England by have the question "Do you speak Welsh?" as an extra question, not an alternative question. Martinvl (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

If that is the case, you are correct, and I misunderstood what was being claimed. However, be careful in doing this, which is what Wikipedia's advice about using Primary Sources also states, because we are supposed to be using reliable secondary or tertiary sources. You might also usefully point out the misleading nature of the government Internet report, if it can be verified as being misleading, in a footnote to help prevent any future changes relying on what can be reliably said to be misleading.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The relevant policy on primary sources states "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." My understanding is that if one is merely extracting and repeating what is in the tables, that is OK. Martinvl (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

That was what I had in mind, and why I mentioned primay sources in the way I did in my previous message.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The main language questions in Wales and in England were different. Question 18, Language (p8), asks 'What is your main language?' Responses are 'English' or 'Other'. However, the note shown below question 19 says “Note: In Wales, the first response category in the main language question will be 'English or Welsh'. The ONS' figures and commentary sometimes note that figures given for English include Welsh e.g. “Figure 9: Households where not all usual residents have English (or Welsh in Wales) as a main language”, “Notes for - Household language: English or Welsh in Wales.” Sometime they don't. For example, Key statistics (published 30 January 2013) says “Ninety two per cent (49.8 million) of usual residents aged three years and over spoke English (English or Welsh in Wales) as their main language.”, but the 'Welsh in Wales' caveat is not given for subsequent stats. This matters in particular for stat #4 “The second most reported main language was Polish (one per cent, 546,000)” - implying that the most reported main 'language' was English and Welsh. Daicaregos (talk) 09:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

In which case, I consider that my original point then fully applies, and you must be extremely careful in interpreting and synthesizing, comparing and contrasting any of the information from the English and from the Welsh versions of the census. It may appear that one can infer something if we assume people behave rationally, but my own experience, and those of others, tells me that these inferences (on what people ought to do if they behaved rationally) are often not backed up if one tests them out. I think you could be in danger of doing unacceptable original research and synthesis (according to wikipedia) unless you limit yourselves to reporting just the bare facts here. I think doing that, and using footnotes to explain the problem might be best.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Good luck with that :) Daicaregos (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to nail the issue regarding the questionnaires and questions in use in the UK for 2011 and results published so far as not everything said above is in fact correct. 4 variant questionnaires were in use, one for England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. In the later case the questionnaire was also available in the Welsh Language. The questionnaires in England, Wales and Northern Ireland were in a similar format. All three asked the identical question: What is your Main Language? English / Other write in (including BSL). In Wales an additional question preceeded it. Can you understand, speak, read or write Welsh? In NI an addtional question followed this: Can you understand, speak, read or write Irish or Ulster-Scots? The Scotland census followed a different format and asked different questions. Rather than asking first about the main language it asked: Which of these can you do? Tick all that apply -for each of-: English, Scottish Gaelic and Scots: Understand, Speak Read Write English. It also asked a supplimentary question dealing with the part of the question in the other questionnaires not so far addressed. Do you use a language other than English at home? Tick No, English only, Yes BSL, Yes other please write in. I think this latter question has been carefully designed to ensure a UK-wide statisitcal assessment as to the main language spoken can be determined.

Regarding the results published so far, to date Scotland's Census have not yet published their results relating to language and nationalities so there is no UK wide data available yet on what is the main language spoken. This is not due until later this year at which time the ONS will publish a consolidated report for all the constituent countries in the UK.

So on the one hand though there is data for the number of people of Welsh and Polish origin living in England Wales and Northern Ireland and what the main language spoken we do not have any of this data published as yet for Scotland. As far as the Welsh language speakers are concerned as indicated at the start of this thread there is only data available for Wales and where Welsh is the main language spoken in England, Northern Ireland and (when published) Scotland. Care needs to be taken when referencing the journalists who may not have interpreted the data about the Welsh and Polich language speakers correctly. I kept numbers out of this so far but if anyone wants the data looked up happy to do so. Hope this helps? Tmol42 (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Add one direction to music?

I'm not a fan of one direction by any stretch of the imagination, but you can't deny that they have been astonishingly successful worldwide, and therefore, whether we like it or not, deserve a space in the list of recent British musical successes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.182.46 (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The consensus is that, because the UK have produced so many successful acts, the more recent acts need to achieve over 30 million sales to get into the list (which is stated in a hidden note next to the text). Do you have reliable sources that indicate that One Direction managed this yet?--SabreBD (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Apart from which, they've been around only what, a couple of years? 'Popular' heavily-manufactured acts like this come and go every few years. No one will know who they are in 2-3 years. I can't see any reason to mention acts that haven't had at least a decade or two of success.--92.162.235.175 (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not sure of the value of the last sentence in that paragraph: it seems a bit strange having a lower threshold for inclusion because the act was recent. Is it logical for a "recent" act with 31 million sales to be included but a longstanding act with a 190 million sales to be excluded? DeCausa (talk) 09:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it is a way of spreading the time period of the section. The point is not to list the most successful acts over time, but to demonstrate that the contribution to music continues. Inevitably more recent acts have sold less records: less records in general are sold and they have had less time to sell them.--SabreBD (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Formation section

Unresolved

 – See 'Current unresolved issues'

I don't know why the 'Acts of Union 1707' is mentioned in the formation section if the 'Crown of Ireland Act 1542' is not, seems unfair to mention how the Kingdom of Great Britain was formed but not the Kingdom of Ireland as are both predecessor states of the United Kingdom. Also the 'Anglo-Irish Treaty' has nothing to do with the formation of the United Kingdom. I would advise either removing the 'Acts of Union 1707' and the 'Anglo-Irish Treaty' from the Formation section or including the 'Crown of Ireland Act 1542' and possibly changing the name from 'Formation' to 'History'. Thanks, Rob (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The comparable act is the 1801 Act of Union, and it is mentioned.--SabreBD (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstood what i wrote, i'm not saying the article states anything incorrect, what i am saying is that the 'Act of Union 1707' is as relevant to the formation of the United Kingdom as the 'Crown of Ireland Act 1542' is and that the title 'Formation' is not really appropriate as the 'Act of Union 1707' and the 'Anglo-Irish Treaty' have not directly formed the United Kingdom. Rob (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The 1707 Treaty created a united kingdom that covered two of the three kingdoms in the British Isles, which was extended to include Ireland in 1801. That is why the story of the cretion of the UK starts then. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I would have to disagree. The Acts of Union 1800 were new acts and were not an extended version of the Acts of Union 1707. The Union with Ireland Act 1800 states 'That Great Britain and Ireland shall upon Jan. 1, 1801, be united into one kingdom'. This suggests that both the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland are successor states to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not the Kingdom of Ireland joining an existing union. Therefore the Kingdom of Great Britain is a predecessor state and it's formation is not directly related to the formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Thanks Rob (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with most of Rob's logic. The Kingdom of Ireland clearly is the other predecessor state. If the unification of Great Britain needs to be mentioned, then the unification of Ireland is no less significant. However, the Crown of Ireland Act 1542 is not the moment of unification, rather it marks the end of papal authority over the Lordship of Ireland. Moonraker (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, to show the unification of Ireland you would have to use the 'Norman invasion of Ireland'. Personally i think the 'Acts of Union 1707' and the 'Anglo-Irish Treaty' are not related enough to be placed in the info box and definitely should not be labelled under the 'Formation' section as this could confuse the reader into think the country was formed in 1707 which it wasn't. Rob (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is not as clear cut as you imply. The process of stitching together the three kingdoms that were to form the United Kingdom started in 1707 when two of them joined together. It is presumably for this reason that sources abound that state that the United Kingdom is over 300 years old. The article as currently written makes clear the events of 1707 and 1801, allowing the readers to make their own conclusions. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

For example :"The most important consideration in the making of the United Kingdom in 1707 was the standpoint of England." from 'Acts of Union: The creation of the United Kingdom' by Professor Allan I. Macinnes as quoted on the BBC website [1]. We can debate about whether we agree or disagree with the point but, as I said above, it is not as clearcut as you imply. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Fishieheler2 on the infobox and 1707 ad 1801 (which I didn't realise we were discussing). I have no objection in principle to mentioning the Norman invasion of Ireland in the text, as we do Scottish unification. However, Ireland was not really united by this act and had to be "reconquered" several times, most notably under Elizabeth I. We really do not want to get into all that detail here. A lot of time and effort has been put into making this section as concise as possible and I do not wish to see that undone.--SabreBD (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

So, general consensus is to have the 'Acts of Union 1707' and 'Acts of Union 1800' but not 'Anglo-Irish Treaty'? And also to have the 'Norman invasion of Ireland' in text and the article edited to show that the Kingdom of Great Britain was a separate state? Thanks Rob (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The article does not require to be "edited to show that the Kingdom of Great Britain was a separate state". The article sets out the details accurately and no further interpretation needs to be added. Readers can come to their own conclusions. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The article currently misinforms the reader that the Kingdom of Great Britain is the same legal entity as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland when the Union with Ireland Act 1800 suggests that the Kingdom of Great Britain is a predecessor state and that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is a new state which is a sucessor of both the Kingdom of Ireland the Kingdom of Great Britain. In my edit, under the 'Etymology and terminology' and 'History' sections i had made it clear that the Kingdom of Great Britain is a predecessor state to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I don't understand why you think the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a union of 3 kingdoms when the Union with Ireland Act 1800 clearly states it is a union between 2 kingdoms, the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland. I agree that the formation of the Kingdom of Great Britain is significant to the United Kingdom of great Britain and Northern Ireland however to say the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was formed in 1707 is inccorect and suggests that the Kingdom of Ireland was annexed by the Kingdom of Great Britain which legally, it was not. Please consider implementing the changes i made in 'Etymology and terminology' and 'History' sections. Thanks Rob (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

"I don't understand why you think the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a union of 3 kingdoms when the Union with Ireland Act 1800 clearly states it is a union between 2 kingdoms" - well maybe because one of the kingdoms was itself a union between two kingdoms? Anyway, I can't understand the logic of arguing that the current version suggests that "the Kingdom of Ireland was annexed by the Kingdom of Great Britain". The USA started with 13 states and covered considerably less territory than now. Does that mean it annexed all the other states that subsequently joined the USA? Should the formation date of the USA be 1959 when Alaska became the 50th state? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I have some sympathy with what Rob is saying. The article was much better until a few weeks (or was it months?) ago when the etymology section was edited so that the stuff about "the United Kingdom of Great Britain" was given much greater prominence at the beginning of the section. It's quite misleading (and wrong in constitutional law) to give the impression that the state was founded in 1707 and the Kingdom of Ireland was added to it. But this is an old argument, and some editors have stuck to the 1707 point of view doggedly. DeCausa (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Fishiehelper2, your missing the point. Under-law the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was formed by a union between the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland. Under-law the Kingdom of Great Britain did not annex or take control off the Kingdom of Ireland, nor did the Kingdom of Ireland join the Kingdom of Great Britain. Weather or not after the union was created Great Britain took complete control over Ireland is irrelevant, the Act of Union 1800 states clearly that it was a union and thus both states are predecessors. Rob (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment and state whether you oppose or support editing this article to show that the Kingdom of Great Britain was a predecessor state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Thanks, Rob (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Support, Rob (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Support, GoodDay (talk) 11:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment and state whether you oppose or support removing the 'Anglo-Irish Treaty' from the formation infobox. Thanks, Rob (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Support, Rob (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose, GoodDay (talk) 11:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment and state whether you oppose or support adding the 'Norman invasion of Ireland' to the formation infobox. Thanks Rob (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Support, Rob (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose, GoodDay (talk) 11:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Rob. I think the reason you are not getting much a response to this is that no-one else seems to want to change the infobox. I may have missed something, but I think the only suggestion in this thread outside yourself is that we think about mentioning the Norman invasion of island in the text.--SabreBD (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Currently, i can't get a clear understanding of what people support and don't support regarding these issues, that why i posted the polls. I would appreciate it people would show what there clear opinions are on these issues.

A summary of my issues are:

• The article suggest that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a continuation of the Kingdom of Great Britian, which it is not.
• The info-box suggests that the 'Anglo-Irish Treaty' was involved in the formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which it was not.
• The article downplays the significance of the Kingdom of Ireland in the union. To fix this i would suggest adding 'Norman invasion of Ireland' to the formation info-box, however this is only a suggestion.

I apologise for bringing up all these issues in one discussion. Rob (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

That the Crown of Ireland was vested in the same person as the Crown of England is irrelevant to the constitutional development of the country. It is only when the Crowns were merged in 1707 and 1801 that the constituent countries were merged. Notice that when James VI of Scotland became King of England two countries remained separate. TFD (talk) 03:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

No longer suggesting that, instead i feel the 'Norman invasion of Ireland' is what cause the formation of the Lordship of Ireland which then went on to form the Kingdom of Ireland. Thanks, Rob (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

(resp to Rob) concerning the poll (which I find incomplete), I also support the usage of the Kingdom of Ireland as a predecessor to the UK. I support keeping the Anglo-Irish Treaty & the 1800 Union Act. I oppose keeping the Norman invasion of England & the 1707 Union Act. GoodDay (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Current unresolved issues

The article suggests that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a continuation of the Kingdom of Great Britain

The Union with Ireland Act 1800 shows that the Kingdom of Great Britain is a predecessor state and that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is a sucessor state of both the Kingdom of Ireland and the Kingdom of Great Britain. Legally the Kingdom of Great Britain did not annex or take control off the Kingdom of Ireland, nor did the Kingdom of Ireland join the Kingdom of Great Britain. In my edit, i did not remove any information from the article and only restructured the 'Etymology and terminology' and 'History' sections to make it clear that under-law the Kingdom of Great Britain is a predecessor state to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Also, I would suggests adding some information about the formation of the Kingdom of Ireland as i think this is significant to the formation of the United Kingdom. Thanks, Rob (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Completely disagree with you on this. The concept of the United Kingdom began in 1707 and the addition of Ireland eas analogous to the process by which the USA grew from 13 states to 50. If your logic is correct, I'd be interested to know whether you think the USA was formed when Alaska and Hawaii joined? Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

A union between two states is much diffrent to a state joining an existing union. The USA did not unite with Alaska and Hawaii, Alaska and Hawaii joined the existing union, therefore the USA was a continuing state. The Union with Ireland Act 1800 states that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was a successor state to both the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland, therefore suggesting that it was a union between two states, not a state joining a existing union. Thanks, Rob (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rob. You say "The Union with Ireland Act 1800 states that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was a successor state to both the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland". I couldn't find where it said that "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was a successor state to both the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland" - where is that quote exactly? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't quoting it, i summarised it. Here's the quote: 'the said kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland shall, upon the first day of January which shall be in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and one, and for ever after, be united into one kingdom, by the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland'. Thanks, Rob (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rob. Forgive me but that doesn't mention anything about successor states etc - that bit is your interpretation. If you want this article to state that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is the successor state you believe, you will need to find a reliable third party source that says it. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The use of the phrase 'of the United Kingdom created since the union' and 'of the United Kingdom created after the union' in Article Fourth suggests that the new state was a successor to the previous states. Thanks, Rob (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm afraid I disagree with your interpretation. The state created in 1707 was already a union - indeed already a united kingdom - and unless you can find a source that states that the United kingdom og Great Britain and Ireland was a successor state, you interpretations count for nothing. Sorry, but that's how wikipedia works. regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 01:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Is your point that a new state was not created in 1801 or that there was a new state but it was not a successor state? DeCausa (talk) 10:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

My point is that the situation is not as clear cut as some editors are suggesting and therefore the only way forward is to provide a reliable third party source to support the suggestion that the United Kingom of Great Britain and Ireland is a successor state to Great Britain. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

But my question is source for saying the in 1801 a new state was created or specifically successor state? DeCausa (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry - if the claim is that the state formed in 1801 was a 'successor state', then that claim should be supported by a source. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

That's fine - I was just checking to make sure that no one was doubting that the 1801 Act created a new state. That's clear cut and there's a ton of RS on it. "Successor state", on the other hand, has a specific legal meaning. While I wouldn't personally doubt the UK would qualify as a successor state I equally wouldn't be confident in finding an RS that expressly says that - there would be little call for it. Thanks for the clarification. DeCausa (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Rob, you need a secondary source that says Ireland was a predecessor state of the UK of GB and Ireland. Using the 1800 Act is original research, because it does not use that terminology and the concept of successor states did not develop until later in the century. It is anyway a concept in international law, while the Union Act was domestic law. I doubt Ireland could be considered a predecessor state because it had no international legal personality, as it had been in personal union with England since Norman times, and therefore had no rights and obligations separate from those of the UK of GB. TFD (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, however this article still needs to be changed to show that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was created in 1801, not 1707. Thanks, Rob (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

TFD is quite wrong there. The Kingdom of Ireland was a sovereign state - see this for instance, and had beeen so since the 16th century. It was in personal union with the English crown in the same way as the Kingdom of Scotland was 1601 to 1707. Although because of Poynings' Law most of its life it had less legislative freedom of movement, but this wasn't always so eg during the time of "Grattan's Parliament". I don't think there's much doubt that the 1801 Act invoved the amalgamation of two states to create a new third state (here's a source for the "new state". So, we have sources for Kingdom of Ireland being a sovereign state that was merged with GB to form a new state , the UK, in 1801. Sounds pretty close to being a predecessor state to me. DeCausa (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Your source explains arguments advance by nationalists, not actual legal status. In the 1700s, Ireland was not sovereign. The same page says "a from of legislative independence had been wrested from London." Ireland was a dependency of the UK of GB, just as Alaska was a dependency of the US and the change of Ireland's status did not create a new state any more than the US became a new state in 1959. In any case you would need a source that said it did. This is not about fairness, but about what the law was. TFD (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide an WP:RS for that please. You've misread the first source. As you can see the second source I provided, a constitutional law book makes clear that in 1801 a new state was created. That's the standard mainstream legal analysis. Your confusing the legal position with political realities. DeCausa (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

A couple of points here. Firstly, even during the time of Grattan's Parliament, the Kingdom of Ireland can hardly be considered a sovereign kingdom; it was governed by officials appointed in Westminster. The Lord Lieutenant, the Chief Secretary, and the rest, were appointed by the English and then by the British government. Compare to Hanover or to Scotland before 1707, which were genuine cases of personal unions of separate states. I'd add that a purely legalistic view is probably not the best way to look at these things. Yes, formally what happened in 1801 was the merger of two kingdoms into a single new kingdom. But in fact what happened was the incorporation of Ireland into the existing Kingdom of Great Britain - or, to be quite honest, what really happened was the abolition of the Irish Parliament and the incorporation of Irish representative peers and MPs into the Westminster Parliament, given that, otherwise, the administration and legal system of Ireland remained virtually identical. john k (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:RS for that? Also, I think your description of 17th century Scotland is incorrect. It was very much ruled from London through institutions like the Lords of the Articles and effectively viceroys like Middleton, Rothes and Lauderdale. See this source which says that the post-1707 government was the same as the pre-Union one: "still directed from the South".DeCausa (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a source at the moment, and admittedly my knowledge of Scotland is not all that great. That being said, I was not arguing that Scotland was not largely ruled from London between 1603 and 1707. The question is who was ruling it from London. My understanding is that for Scotland, this was always done explicitly by the King in his capacity as King of Scots. Lauderdale and the rest were royal appointees, appointed on the basis of their personal loyalty to the Stuart kings. Neither the King's English ministers nor the English Parliament had any authority over Scotland. The same was even more true of 18th century Hanover - all government officials there were appointed by the King, who kept a separate Hanoverian chancery with him in London to conduct Hanoverian business. In 18th century Ireland, on the other hand, officials were appointed by the King on advice from his Prime Minister, who was a British minister with no connection to Ireland. There was no requirement that any officials have the confidence of the Irish Parliament, but, in fact, they did have to have the confidence of the British parliament, which is why by the late 18th century Viceroys and Chief Secretaries were coming in and out with ministerial changes in Westminster. Until 1782, at least, the Irish Parliament also was not independent of the Parliament in Westminster. The various Irish viceroys, unlike the Stuarts' Scottish ministers, were Englishmen with no previous connection to the island. john k (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is how it is explained in Territorial Organization Of European States, pp. 92, 94, "The conquest of Ireland began in the 12th century.... In 1541 Henry VIII is recognized King of Ireland. From that time on the English held control....[B]y force of the Acts of Union of 1800...the Kingdom of Ireland was included into the state, and the name of the state changed for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. In 1927 once again the name of the state was corrected...."[2] I suppose one could say it was a "new state", just as the French Fifth Republic is a new state, but really it is just a renamed state. Scotland was different. As this source describes it, "The countries were tied into a real union [in 1707], and instead of the two states...the new state arose" (p. 94). While it could be that de facto union occured in 1603, de jure it occurred in 1707. Bear in mind that Ireland unlike Scotland had never been considered a separate state in public international law. TFD (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a loose way of describing it, which is true enough in terms of real politik. It's not a bad effort from a Polish survey on a wide variety of complex issues across Europe, of which this is just one, and then the section you refer to is an introductory background description for the main point of the chapter. But, that's all it is "not a bad effort. It's not a high quality RS for this and doesn't match mainstream UK Constitutional law sources: WP:UNDUE applies. Btw, "Public international law" is not something that was around in the way you imply in the 17th century. DeCausa (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

:If we want to say that a new state was created then we need clear sources that say that. A lengthy legal opinion on Scotland's possible independence posted to HM government's website, p. 75, says, "36. We note that the incorporation...of Ireland, previously a colony, under the Union with Ireland Act 1801 (GB) and the Act of Union 1800 (Ireland) did not affect state continuity. Despite its similarity to the union of 1707, Scottish and English writers unite in seeing the incorporation of Ireland not as the creation of a new state but as an accretion without any consequences in international law."[3] Note the writers are not expressing their own opinions but noting the consensus in legal opinion.

BTW I was not implying that public international law was "something that was around in the way you imply in the 17th century." That is why I said "Ireland... had never been considered a separate state in public international law." The reason is that the law did not develop until after Ireland was clearly a UK dependency. Whether or not it was a sovereign state before then is moot, since it predates the modern law. TFD (talk) 07:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

That is an opinion on how the Act of Union 1801 should be treaty as a matter of modern day international law, not what really happended under domestic law. Rob (talk) 12:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

That is a good source I admit. But, in response to your comment that "If we want to say that a new state was created then we need clear sources that say that.", you ignored the source I provided earlier: p.11 of Prof. David Feldman's English Public Law - a very mainstream authoritative constitutional law work which unequivocally states that 1801 created a new state. And there are others. The authors of your source are equally credible I agree, although a standard text which goes through more than one edition I would suggest is, in general terms, a better source than a one off publication written for a specific purpose. But that's a marginal point and your source has the advantage of, as you say, claiming to provide a survey of opinion rather than just a statement of the position. The only curious aspect to it is that the summary of opinion is limited to "Scottish and English writers". I wonder whether there is a significance in that? The other point of interest is that at paragraphs 35-37 they discuss the alternative view to MacCormick that no new state was created in 1707 and Scotland was amalgamated into England under a new name. Annoyingly, they only say "it is not necessary to decide between these views". DeCausa (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. You will note that I stated above that the situation is not clear cut and the above contributions make clear that there are sources to support both positions (though I side on the view that the date 1707 has more significance than 1801). Anyway, a compromise position is to deliberately not take a view as to when the current state began, but to merely set out the details for others to interpret. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

To make both positions clear, i belive we should restructure the history section have three sub-sections; 'Before 1707', '1707 to 1801' and 'Since the Acts of Union of 1800'. In the 'Since the Acts of Union of 1800' sub-section we could include that a new state was created under domestic law howevever most see the incorporation of Ireland not as the creation of a new state but as an accretion without any consequences in international law. Thanks, Rob (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Disagree with that suggestion, I'm afraid. A before 1707/after 1707 split is perfectly sufficient. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

What about a paragraph about the Acts of Union of 1800 within the 'Since the Acts of Union of 1707' section? 81.132.8.1 (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The article suggests that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a continuation of the Kingdom of Great Britain (cont.)

DeCausa, I read your source. It says, "In 1801, there was a formal political union of Great Britain and Ireland (which had been under the rule of English, and later British, monarchs since 1155). The new state was named the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." Your source does not explain what it means by "new state" nor provide any sources that would help us understand it. If they are saying that a new state was created under public international law, then we need to know which were the predecessor states and which state(s) was extinguished.

Or are they saying that sufficient constitutional change had occurred that for domestic purposes it was a new state, just as France by adopting new constitutions has been a kingdom (twice), and empire (twice) and a republic (5 times), while maintaining the same international personality? In that case, the commonwealth, restoration, and revolution could be considered new states.

Or are they just saying that the country changed its name?

You need a source that clearly explains this.

TFD (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The Union with Ireland Act 1800 suggests that under domestic law a new state was created however a legal opinion on Scotland's possible independence posted to HM government's website suggests that under modern day international law the state kept the same international personality. Rob (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The info-box suggests that the 'Anglo-Irish Treaty' was involved in the formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Resolved

The 'Anglo-Irish Treaty' was not involved in the formation of the United Kingdom, and only the succession of part of the state. Possibly the 'Formation' section could be renamed 'History' or the 'Anglo-Irish Treaty' could be removed from the formation section and mentioned in the article instead. Thanks, Rob (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of history. 'Formation' surely refers to factors that have led the United Kingdom to be what it is today, and the leaving of most of Ireland is a factor that is directly relevant. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Good point, however it's not directly related to the formation of the United Kingdom as a state. The problem with your interpretation is that many factors have led the United Kingdom to be what it is today, such as the fall of the Empire, which are far more significant then Irish succession. Thanks, Rob (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

No, not really. The Empire was a possession of the United Kingdom (or of the crown of the United Kingdom). It was never part of the United Kingdom. The '26 Counties' of Ireland were part of the United Kingdom - and then they weren't. It's the only change to what is or isn't in the United Kingdom since 1801 (well, material change - there is the Island of Rockall Act 1972!) Incidentally, our History of the formation of the United Kingdom article includes a section on Irish independence. DeCausa (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, i understand, apologies. Thanks, Rob (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The Anglo-Irish Treaty certainly was involved in the formation of the United Kingdom:

• Formation 1 [mass noun] the action of forming or process of being formed
• Form 2 ... [no object] (be formed) have a specified shape

The current "shape" of the UK is defined by that treaty. --RA (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

"national" administrations

Regarding this edit, while I appreciate there is a desire to emphasise the 'country-ness' of Scotland and Wales, the term "national administration" is ambiguous with regard to the UK. Additionally, the term "nation" is (lets just say) 'not as appropriate' with respect to Northern Ireland as it is to England, Scotland, Wales or the UK itself.

Adding the term "national" to "Devolved administrations" adds nothing practical but does introduce unnecessary (and easily avoidable) issues. It can just be left out. --RA (talk) 08:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree. "National" is completely inappropriate for Northern Ireland which, whatever it is, is not a "nation". Brocach (talk) 10:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm kind of ambivalent either way, and don't think it's "inappropriate" as such, but do agree that it doesn't really add much that's actually necessary while nonetheless adding the risk of generating disputes. Plus I'd suggest that out in the real world "devolved administration" in reference to any of the three, let alone Northern Ireland specifically, is a lot more common a phrase than "devolved national administration". N-HH talk/edits 10:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. To explain, that edit was merely returning the version to the previous longstanding version. I remember way back when the decision to insert national was first made was to make clear that the subsection was dealing with the devolved arrangements for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and was not about the devolved London administration. 'National' helped make that distinction. I hope this clarifies the original intention and why I brought it back to the article. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree and we all know from elsewhere that the NI position is not black and white so its pretty harmless and makes the position clearer ----Snowded ^TALK 10:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Northern Ireland is a country; Wikipedia says so. And it is certainly a nation (even Catalonia is classed as a nation) so the current section heading is fine. The Roman Candle (talk) 11:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary; WP acknowledges the difficulties re terminology in relation what the region is, and specifically quotes authorities rejecting the term "nation". The devolved administration in Northern Ireland does not describe itself as "national". There is no need to introduce (or reintroduce) this controversial and wholly unnecessary term. Brocach (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

"... we all know from elsewhere that the NI position is not black and white ..." Agree. "...so its pretty harmless and makes the position clearer." Huh? If the NI position is not black and white, how does this adding terms like this make it clearer? Stormont is certainly a "devolved administration". On that everyone can all agree. Whether it is is a "national administration" is a whole-different-kettle-of-fish.

In any case, there is the wider (non-NI-related) ambiguity of "national administration" in the UK (e.g. is Holyrood the "national administration" in Scotland or is Westminster the "national administration".) --RA (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence of Countries of the United Kingdom states; The countries of the United Kingdom are England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. It's a country. Unfortunately some people don't like it, and won't acknowledge it. I see no problem with the word "national" in the section heading. The term nation is broad enough to cover everyone's POV, I would have thought. The Roman Candle (talk) 12:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, whether it is a "country" or not is neither proven by the text content of any WP page – or indeed provable at all, surely – nor immediately relevant to the point at hand. The bottom line is that there is never certainty one way or the other with such subjective and malleable terms and categories as "country" or "nation", and all we need to think about here is whether the use of "national" here adds net clarity and/or is commonly found as a description of the administrations in question. As noted previously, I'm kind of agnostic overall and not sure it's worth getting too excited about, but I doubt whether it passes those two tests (although I hadn't factored in the London point initially). As a side point, it's not an accident I suspect that Scotland has a "Parliament", Wales a "National Assembly" and Northern Ireland an "Assembly". N-HH talk/edits 12:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

When in doubt, use the sources. This UK government site does not use the word "national" - it refers to "the devolved legislatures", "devolved administrations", and "devolved territory". In the absence of any more neutral reliable source, I suggest we use that terminology. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources are available to support any POV. Take this one, for instance: [4]. Can someone please explain what precisely the problem is with the word "national", unless it's to do with all this baloney about NI not being a country and some people finding such a suggestion "offensive" - We know all about that. The Roman Candle (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Since the term "nation" has multiple meanings, it is best to avoid it because it creates ambiguity. It can mean for example a sovereign state recognized under international law, may include overseas territories of that state, may mean an ethnic group within one or more states, or may mean a geographic region associated with that group. TFD (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It's used all over the place in Wikipedia. Like masses of other terms, yes, it has multiple meanings. That doesn't mean we should avoid it. It's pretty clear what it means in the current context. The Roman Candle (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)