Talk:United Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United Kingdom article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
Good article United Kingdom has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Archive
Archives
  1. Sept. 2001 – August 2004
  2. August 2004 – April 2005
  3. April 2005 – November 2005
  4. November 2005 – Feb. 2006
  5. February 2006 – May 2006
  6. Mid May 2006 - July 2006
  7. July 2006 - November 2006
  8. November 2006 - April 2007
  9. April 2007 - July 2007
  10. Aug 2007 - Dec 2007, part 1
  11. Aug 2007 - Dec 2007, part 2
  12. Aug 2007 - Dec 2007, part 3
  13. Aug 2007 - Dec 2007, part 4
  14. Aug 2007 - Dec 2007, part 5
  15. Dec 2007 - May 2008
  16. June 2008
Country/State debate archives
  1. June 2005-March 2006
  2. April 2006-May 2006
Terminology debate archives
  1. July - September 2006
  2. September 2006-October 2006
Subdivision name debate archives
  1. April - June 2008

Contents


[edit] rising birth rate

I've just noticed that the demography section claims (first paragraph) that our increasing population is partly due to a rising birth rate, but in the 4th paragraph it states that the fertility rate is below the replacement rate! While it is true that the birth rate has risen recently, it is still not sufficient to maintain the population, let alone increase it - seems to me that the way the first paragraph is written is therefore misleading. Any thoughts? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I was about to slate this for having no reference, but it seems to be adequately sourced! I'd change the wording so that it says something like "The Guardian claims this is because a rising birth rate." or something to that effect. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
They only claim it is one ingredient of the increase, and they are actually reporting what the ONS said. What they are saying is that the increase would not be as big if the fertility rate had not been increasing. Seems about right to me. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
This is slightly complicated by the fact that there can be natural population increase in the short term even if the birth rate is below replacement, because the replacement rate refers to the long run. This is explained well here: "Just because period fertility is below replacement level does not mean that a population will immediately see natural decline (more deaths occurring than births). The age structure of the population and changes in mortality will determine when natural decline occurs. In England and Wales, even though fertility has been below replacement level since the 1973, births have exceeded deaths (except in the exceptionally low fertility year of 1976), normally by around 10 to 20 per cent each year". Cordless Larry (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This isn't right

The UK is a developed country,

It says that but the UK isnt one country, does anyone else beleive this should be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 345tom (talk • contribs) 20:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

What's to change? The UK is one country; it's got one head-of-state (Monarch) & one head-of-government (Prime Minister) & 1 Legislature (House of Commons & the House of Lords). GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
It actually has more than one legislature, but only one sovereign legislature - Westminster. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Oops, I meant Legislative Branch. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a collection of countries not one so it should be changedd to state this. 345tom (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope, the UK is one country. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
You might want to check out Countries of the United Kingdom which explains it. Its a recently created article and Matt (in the main) plus others put some good work into clarifying the issue. --Snowded TALK 20:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Countries within a country. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Why do people have such a problem with the idea that the UK can both be a country and contain countries? Of course, "country" means something very slightly different in the case of the UK than in the case of Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland, but so what? It's no weirder than saying that an unborn baby is a person within a person. garik (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Cool. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Subjects, not citizens

A year ago I tried to insert the fact that people in the UK were "subjects" of the Queen, rather than citizens (as in a Republic). This was deleted (without any explanation) at the time and I was otherwise engaged and never pursued it. I now propose, if there are no objections, to re-insert this important piece of information. Sarah777 (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I object, because you are wrong. [1] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
No. That text seems to refer to the situation regarding non-British people. It nowhere denies that British people are subjects. Sarah777 (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
My passport says I am a citizen and as far as I know (I may get a nasty shock one day) I am free to advocate nationalist and republican politics. I think this is Red Herring Sarah. --Snowded TALK 23:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
If its true - which I believe it is - then suppression of that fact is censorship - as we are constantly told in relation some other descriptions. And if true - it is surely a fairly important fact! 23:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
There is acctually some differences appearing in British law as to subjects and citizens. Before I am sure it is true, but, as we know they are citizens and it doesn't involve any kind of debate, I think we should just stick with that. Narson (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
In terms of nationality, the vast majority of the population of the UK are British citizens not British subjects, per the British Nationality Act 1981. This is abundantly clear reading the Government website I linked to above. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The forms of nationality are:

   * British citizenship;
   * British overseas citizenship;
   * British overseas territories citizenship;
   * British national (overseas);
   * British protected person; and
   * British subject.

Of these, only British citizens have an automatic right to live and work in the United Kingdom and to apply for a British passport. Those with other forms of British nationality must obtain permission to live and work here. They may be entitled to register as British citizens in certain circumstances.

Until 1949, nearly everyone with a close connection to the United Kingdom was called a British subject. And all citizens of Commonwealth countries were British subjects until January 1983. Since that date, very few categories of people have qualified as British subjects. British subjects normally cannot pass on that status to their children if the children were born after 1 January 1983. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I question whether a British Government website is a reliable source; do they cite the legal instruments that support their definitions? Sarah777 (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
You can question it all you like, but it'll be a lonely exercise. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
In defence of truth and WP:NPOV, lonliness is often my sole companion. Sarah777 (talk) 23:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
With due respect Sarah, this is starting to sound a bit pointy. If subject and citizen are synonyms as you say then we can use citizen just as easily as subject. If it is as Red Hat says, then we should use citizen. Either way citizen is fine, no? Narson (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll have to ask you to withdraw that charge of pointiness. If British people are indeed "subjects" then suppression of this fact is an outrageous attempt at censorship; regardless of whether they are also citizens or not. Sarah777 (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The solution is a simple one: provide references. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Withdraw the charge first. Sarah777 (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't care less about this "charge". If you don't provide references, it ain't going in the article. It's that simple. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) If it is potty, then its not the only suggestion in that category around all the BI stuff. Much as I don't want to be a subject, things do not seem as clear as you imply Red Hat. If I look at British subject we find this statement Although the term "British subject" now has a very restrictive statutory definition, British citizens and others continue to be "subjects" of the Crown at common law although it also says British citizens are not British subjects under the 1981 Act. The only circumstance where a person may be both a British subject and British citizen simultaneously is a case where a British subject connected with Ireland (s. 31 of the 1981 Act) acquires British citizenship by naturalisation or registration. There are no direct citations in that article mind you. Any constitutional lawyers around who can clarify the position? --Snowded TALK 23:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This began with Sarah suggesting that British people are subjects not citizens, and that the wording should be changed. This is patently untrue. Another reference: "...the term 'subject' became obsolete and finally disappeared in 1981. Now, under the British Nationality Act 1981, British citizenship has become the status of people who are 'closely connected with the United Kingdom and "belong" to the United Kingdom for international or other purposes.'" Defining British Citizenship: Empire, Commonwealth and Modern Britain, Rieko Karatani Routledge (2003) p17 The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course all of this is not to be confused with 'domicile' which has nothing to do with where you live or were born ;) Seriously, as fun as this trip down the vagueness of parts of British law is, doesn't it just prove the point that we should go with the clearer wording (citizen) than get involved in something which will do doubt end up at a court hearing at some point. Narson (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Its a curiosity though isn't it? The Statutory position is I think clear (So Sarah's proposed edit would not be valid) and we are (thank god) citizens. However if under common law we are subjects of HM that does have implications and would also be worthy of reference. I am not expert on this, so it would be interesting to hear from someone who is. --Snowded TALK 00:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
In Crown Powers, Subjects and Citizens, Christopher Vincenzi (Continuum International Publishing Group, 1998), p91, "Since the coming into effect of the British Nationality Act 1981 the term 'British subject' has a much narrower meaning than hitherto. Its application is largely confined to those who retain some kind of subject-status in relation to the British Crown but who do not fall into the new classification of 'British Citizen', [etc]... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Red Hat, I have got that, the Statutory position is clear. But common law is an interesting thing in Britain, I know this having been involved in one Privy Council case in the 70s. It may be that I am a citizen of the state but a subject of the crown. I am not saying that is the case, but it is possible, in which case it is notable. As I said, it would be interesting to hear from a expert. --Snowded TALK 00:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The chances of (1) a lawyer stumbling across this rather ridiculous debate and then (2) providing her normally expensive legal advice for free are, I have to say, slim at best... Something as fundamental as this should be easily verifiable by a layperson if it is in fact so. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) As far as I can see from the various pages on the law, a fair amount of lawyers are providing material for free ( as do many other professionals). The ambiguities of British law in relationship to the Crown are not ridiculous by the way, I think you are wrong there and possibly on your lay person point. --Snowded TALK 00:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry - by "ridiculous debate" I meant the original one started by Sarah777. In terms of the origins of the term "British subject" [2], "...on 1 January 1915, of the British Nationality & Status of Aliens Act 1914...conferred the common status of British subject upon those persons who had specified connections with the Crown's dominions. The status of British subject implied allegiance to the Crown." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I think Red Hat is doing a bit of what we'd call "barstool lawyering" - obviously this is an important issue in an article called the "United Kingdom"! Sarah777 (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Its the question of allegiance to the Crown which interests me on this one, which would be implied by subject. However as Red Hat says it needs references. I notice a fast side edit by the way so one may be forthcoming. --Snowded TALK 00:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit of a literalist on this one; if you can be referred to as "Her Majesty's Subjects" you can surely be referred to as Subjects??! Sarah777 (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I think you have to accept citizens, however if there are citations that support the use of subject then it would (I think) be notable and should be included (although not as a replacement for citizen). --Snowded TALK 01:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm old enough to remember seeing passports with "British Subject, Australian Citizen" on the front cover (not for many years, thank goodness). It seems to me reading the quoted sources that the Citizens of the UK are a subset of the Subjects of the UK (or more specifically the Crown). Therefore it seems to me both are correct, but citizen of the UK is a more specific description. --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't read it that way that at all. British subjects and British citizens are both subsets of British nationals, and given that "British subject" has a defined legal meaning, it would be incorrect to use that term. Also, any nuances (if verified) should be discussed at British Subject, not at an overview article on the United Kingdom. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Well I'll have to agree, now I've done a little digging. The British Nationality Act 1981 clearly makes the distinction Red Hat is drawing. It appears the usage of British Subject in the way I referred to it is now a historical artefact. --Michael Johnson (talk) 02:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
It's quite simple really. De jure we are all British citizens as that is what our government prefers. De face, Sarah is right in saying, we are all subjects, as indeed are all people with a monarch as head of state. The term British subject is used by the government for a specific group of people and thus not used. Although logically anyone who is British is also a subject and could thus (de facto) say they are a "British subject".
PS: Note to Snowded, regarding your "I am free to pursue a republican agenda" comment: *Cough, cough* no you arent. See Treason Felony Act 1848. --Cameron* 08:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd better stay in China Lake then and not come home at the end of the week! It will make Matt happy though, I expect to be met at Heathrow and taken down the Thames to the Tower. --Snowded TALK 10:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
If you're lucky you'll get to go through traitors gate! Always look on the bright side! :) --Cameron* 10:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
In that context, the term "subject" is not restricted solely to countries with monarchs as head of state.
  • a person under the rule of a monarch or government [3]
  • 7. a person who is under the dominion or rule of a sovereign; 8. a person who owes allegiance to a government and lives under its protection: four subjects of Sweden. [4]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to add here that I've heard this canard of "British people are subjects, not citizens" several times before. It's almost invariably claimed by Americans who want to preach that that Americans are "more free" than any other nation, and use this 'factoid' as supporting evidence. As the various reponses above demonstrate, the factoid is completely false. The claim I'll leave to individual judgement. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Transport

Can someone swap the order of the 2 transport photos because really the Heathrow picture should come first as it's a more important image of the UK's transport. Thanks NoOneThoughtOfThis1 (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Rail transport seems more important than air transport nationally, though not internationally. Can I suggest browse on Commons for a picture of a main road, which eclipses them both? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 01:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The thing I was thinking was a picture of a nice modern high speed train like the Eurostar would look good. A picture of an old train or old railway would make the UK's railways look "crappy". I think the Heathrow picture is very important as it is the UK's main transport hub for movement in and out of the UK. NoOneThoughtOfThis1 (talk) 04:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Or instead of a railway photo maybe a good motorway photo of a nice modern bit of motorway somewhere in the UK? NoOneThoughtOfThis1 (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Remember though that the point of Wikipedia isn't to make the UK (or any other article subject) look good, but rather to reflect reality. That doesn't mean that you can't change them, but don't automatically go for a photo on the grounds that it makes the UK look good. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Education

Could we have a photo of Oxford University as well in the education section? There's room for a picture of both Cambridge and Oxford University as they're the 2 too most famous education institutions in the UK. Thanks NoOneThoughtOfThis1 (talk) 23:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree here too: they are famous but small, so only justify one picture. Perhaps better to choose a picture of a school or pre-school, preferably outside England. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 01:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think they problem with picking a picture of something that's not famous is it doesn't link to very much other information that people might find of interest. With a photo of a random UK school you have the situation of who's going to want to know about that particular school compared to somewhere like Cambridge or Oxford. The other thing about having equal numbers of photos for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland is you sarcrafice photos that may have been more relevent and of more interest to fulfill a quota. Obviously with 84% of the UK's population living in England approximately 84% of stuff regarding the UK will be in England. NoOneThoughtOfThis1 (talk) 04:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_Kingdom"
Personal tools