Talk:United Kingdom/Country, Kingdom or State Archive 1

message: England,Scotland,Wales,and Northern Ireland are not countries
they ceased to exist when they joined the UK
none of them sign international treaties
only the government of The UK can sign treaties or make laws that effect the nation as a whole
Dudtz 7/21/05 5:54 PM
:Before I thought you were just ignorant of the facts, Dudtz.  Now I just think you're trolling because you've posted this argument elsewhere and have been told by several people the various holes in your argument.  Unless you've got a genuine opinion based on well-researched fact rather than your own version of reality, please stop posting full stop. -- Francs2000 | Talk  22:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just read the answers you've been given before on other pages. -- Francs2000 | Talk  22:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Berwick upon Tweed, which was at War for many years (with no army of it's own, of course) against Russia without realising as it was missed out from the name of the UK by a treaty after Queen Victoria had declared war on behalf of "Great Britain, Ireland, Berwick-upon-Tweed and all British Dominions". Any part of the UK could theoretically act without the rest it seems. - JVG 12:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  England is not a country 

message: Now I know that this is a fairly trivial point, and it is one that has been discussed before. However, given that the article doesn't seem to be receving that much content at the mo, I don't think it would be a harm to clarify what the view is. Was a conclusion/consensus actually reached in previous debates, because to me it wasn't clear? Would an opinion poll be appropriate, if only to clarify where people think it should be? Robdurbar 10:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that's the impression that I had. However, the argument for using state is that 'country' is also a synonym for 'nation', as well as 'state'. By calling the UK a 'country', some people will receive the opinion that we are somehow reducing the claim of Scotland, Wales etc. as nations. Now whether or not we are, or if we think their interpretation of the use of 'country' is wrong, I would argue that we can aovid this potentially pov impression by using 'state'. Robdurbar 10:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But by denying the countryship of the UK then we are introducing genuine POV. Contrast with, for example, Spain. I understand the separatist tendencies - to some extent I share them. But this is not the place to express them. Mucky Duck 12:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The word 'country' might imply nation, but it also implies people in general. The article includes politics, but what are politics without the people who make them and subscribe to them? As far as I'm concerned, to say that the UK is a state completely misses the wider picture.-Rednaxela 13:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Baisically, tho im not a british nationalist, the above is v pov. Country can easily insuate state, and anyway, the UK is far more coherent than you suggest. Robdurbar 23:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some wallies decided to have another edit war over "country"/"state"... so in the interests of my watchlist, I have simply put them both in.  Everybody wins.  or loses.  But either way everyone's the same.   Deano (Talk) 23:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What he said. They're SYNONYMS! Robdurbar 23:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-ignite debate on state/country