Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 2

message: I thought this talk page was as good a place as any to propose this, so here goes.
With an election due within the next year or so, I think it's about time that Wikipedia had articles on the UK constituencies showing, past and present, with a list of the past representatives and election results. There's loads of interesting stuff about pocket boroughs, rotten boroughs and disenfranchisement for fraudulant practices etc.. This would be a big project though, so if we start now we might have something approaching completion by the time fo the election. Mintguy (T) 22:53, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  2005 general election and Parliamentary constituencies 

message: Hi there,
Due to the duplication of countries in both EU and Europe footers, I created a new Template:European_countries_not_in_EU for those European countries not in the EU. This need only be put on pages which have the EU footer - other european countries should probably stick with Europe footer.
Before I change all other EU country pages (I've only changed UK and Ireland), I'm just looking to see if there's any major objections?
Zoney 21:28, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion at Template talk:EU countries Zoney 23:34, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Europe footer 

message: I notice that the map shows '(UK)' beside the Channel Islands. That gives the false impression that they are part of the UK. Bobblewik  (talk) 18:16, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it just shows that the Channel Isles are under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. It's custom that maps show (country) after dependancies to the "country".
I am far from convinced by the logic of the above.  The Channel Islands (and the Isle of Mann) may be subject to the same head of state as the UK but they are not therefore under the UK. Please see also my question below regarding Crown dependency and Crown prerogative. Laurel Bush 12:37, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Channel Islands 

message: "Also under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, though not part of the United Kingdom itself, are the Crown dependencies of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and a number of overseas territories."
:The above statement is incorrect. While British Overseas Territories do fall under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom the Channel Islands & the Isle of Man do not. To fall under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom the  Channel Islands & the Isle of Man would have to come under the jurisdiction of the Government of the  United Kingdom (which consist of the Crown & the Westminster Parliament), they do not. The   Channel Islands & the Isle of Man are Crown Dependencies falling under the  jurisdiction of the Crown only (and as such autonomous states) having their own Parliamentary institutions (which in the case of the Isle of Man pre-dates that at Westminster). The Parliament of the United Kingdom in Westminster has no legal duty or responsibility with respect to the administration or running of Crown Dependencies except where agreed by treaty. For this reason   Crown Dependencies are not part of the European Union (although they are treated as such for customs purposes). Perhaps Somebody can correct this error?
Peter.T 12:47, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: While the British Overseas Territories come under the authority of the United Kingdom Government (Her Majesty's Government), the Crown Colonies come under the British Crown directly (in theory at least). Either way they both (the BOTs and Crown Colonies) come under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, via the Sovereign.
Is the UK itself perhaps a Crown dependency? It is subject to Crown prerogative. Laurel Bush 11:42, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Crown Dependencies

message: I believe that GB was the birth place of postage stamp, mechanically powered railway & electric street lights. There seemed to be no natural place for significant facts like this in the article. David Thrale 21:17, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Firsts

message: I thought Little Britain was Ireland, not Brittany? Dunc_Harris|☺ 13:53, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Little Britain 

message: Shouldn't the British Commonwealth be listed at the bottom.  It is a very important organisation even though it does not command as much attention as others.  HM the Queen is its head and Britain is linked culturally to its Empire and Commonwealth.
: Probably, yes.
: James F. (talk) 16:39, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Commonwealth 

message: I've corrected some rather dramatic inaccuracies. 
# Scotland's modern parliament is not in effect a continuation of its ancient one. This one is a home rule assembly. That one was a sovereign parliament. Suggesting one is the successor of the other is like suggesting the modern French parliament is the continuation of the Estates General. It isn't. 
# The distinction between the legislature and the executive was not clear. 
# The role of the Queen in the constitution was not accurately explained. 
# British governments are never elected, either by the electorate or by the House of Commons. They are appointed. However the Queen appoints someone capable of forming a government (which is not, BTW, the same as having a majority, another error. Minority govts for example, need only ensure that a majority doesn't vote against it - by opposition abstentions, for example)
# The British monarchy has no role in other commonwealth realms. Since the 1920s the Commonwealth has been operating on the principle of 'one wearer, multiple crowns'. So Elizabeth Windsor is Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc etc individually and personally. She is not queen of Australia as queen of the United Kingdom, as appeared to be implied. Sometimes the United Kingdom, not its queen, had a role in a particular dominion. On occasion she as UK queen had a role on behalf of the UK. But for decades the role of being queen of a commonwealth realm has been fundamentally different to that of being UK queen. It just so happens that due to an accident of history the same person holds both parallel posts. FearÉIREANN 12:02, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  factual inaccuracies 

message: The UK is situated off the north-western coast of continental Europe, surrounded by the North Sea, the English Channel and the Atlantic Ocean?  Somebody seems to have lost the UK's only land border.
laurelbush1952@hotmail.com 2005 Jan 25
Why is the UK not considered to have land borders with Spain (via Gibraltar) and, more contentiously, (the rest of) Antartica (via British Antarctic Territory)? Bovlb 20:38, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
:Neither Gibralter nor BAT (nor, for that matter, the Falkland Islands, the Channel Islands, or even the Isle of Man) are "part" of the UK. It's all very fuzzy. Doops 02:28, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Gib is a 'dependency' rather than a 'part'.
And more to the point, it's (as I understand it) a dependency of the Crown, rather than anything directly to do with the United Kingdom as such at all. --Khendon 14:35, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Just to add to the confusion which exists over everything to do with British constitutional matters, in European Parliament elections Gibraltar votes are counted as part of the South West England region! -- Arwel 17:10, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:   UK-Irish border 

message: Just added some information on the movement for home rule in Cornwall, it is worthy of note however it is often overlooked, hushed up or ignored. However the petition of 50000 signatures calling for devolution to Cornwall was probably the biggest political story out of Cornwall in a very long time.
Additionally this sites information on the incorporation of the rump sate of Dumnonia, the Earldom of Cornwall and then the Duchy of Cornwall into the UK is non existent, why?
Bretagne 44  26/2/05
So i see that my edit was removed and no reason given, can i ask why or is it that someone owns this board and i have trod on their toes. I will keep replacing the edit, it is just the begining of my edits on Cornwall's history in the UK, rest assured!
Bretagne 44  27/2/05
:I would suggest that you try and work towards a consensus rather than threatening people with edit wars.Geni 20:32, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cornwall]] Kernow Cornubia Cornewallia Cerny 

message: I do not appreciate User:Heimdal calling me a "vandal" for my edits. I have reasons for editing the article. Images should not be 350px (or anything wider than 300px) because it takes up over half the article width in 800x600 browsers. I believe the addition by Heimdal to the politics section was in good faith, but that section is already of sufficient length. Naming the other commonwealth realms is not necessary. Three sentence sections, such as "Head of Government" should not exist. all other subsections under the politics section only had one paragraph at most, again not long enough to make a section. According to wikipedia:summary style and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries, details should be kept in politics of the United Kingdom, not here. Heimdal should also note that in mass reverting my "vandalism", he removed the bn: interwiki link. --Jiang 21:08, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politics 

message: Page protected after request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection due to an edit war. Please discuss the matter on the talk page. -- Chris 73 Talk 02:53, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
:What edit war? Please specify.
:: Err. He did link to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#United_Kingdom... If you really can't be bothered to click the link, Heimdal's significant edits and Jiang's and others' reversions thereof.
:: James F. (talk) 13:39, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He does ask for discussion on the talk page but fails to initiate same. Laurel Bush 14:02, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for page protection]] 

message: I've updated the article with the estimated population 2004. source: CIA World Factbook
--Benbread 17:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to Population