"

BritishWatcher: Thanks for your courteous and transparent question (the first I have seen from the UK clique since I got ""involved"").  I'll address your second point.  If my answer to that is not clear, there is little point taking the time to suggest actual changes.  Your clarifying question mentions the premise that each part of the UK has its own subdivisions.  The article states this, but your phrasing implies that the parts are not themselves subdivisions.  The article says nothing about that.  Besides the lack of clarity on that point (assuming your reading is correct), there is another confusion in the article: I think the majority of the people reading this article will understand that the four countries are the focus of the article and that the title of the article (Subdivisions...) refers to them.  If it is the case that the parts are not themselves subdivisions, then the article is far from clear on this point (except to the three or four who have been ""involved"").  Hence, there are two confusions in the article: 1) the title suggests that the parts are subdivisions (because of the structure and general content of the article) and 2) since the article explicitly divides the UK into the four countries, this suggests that the parts are themselves subdivisions.  Your reading suggests that the title of the article should be ""subdivisions of the four parts of UK"", not ""subdivisions of the UK"".  Until these confusions are addresses, I think the article casts more shadow than light on the subject.   "