The United Kingdom.

Britain = England, Scotland and Wales

UK = Britain and Northern Ireland

States don't have to be under anything.

What about Gibraltar and the Falklands? I think the Falklands are considered islands, like Skye and the channel islands, but Gibraltar is still a "colony". Then there's the Isle of Man, which is semi-autonomous.

That and I'm pretty sure the UK has a slice of Antarctic Territory.

That distinction is about 200 years out of date. England, Scotland and Wales together became the nation known as the Kingdom of Great Britain. Ireland joined that union to form the nation known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The Republic of Ireland left that union, leaving the nation now known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Each 'step' overwrote the previous one, so the Kingdom of Great Britain doesn't actually exist anymore. As it was added to, the nation was renamed. The distinction isn't very important anyway.

yes i hear house prices over there are very affordable.

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

. . .

I really hope to god you're not saying nations can't exist within a state, 'cause that's just not the case at all. Anyway, I wouldn't call England a state in the sense that Texas and California are states - the word has a slightly different meaning in the American context. Why can't I call them nations? They existed independently of one another for thousands of years, have their own distinct culture, tradition and language, all things that are usually criteria for nationhood.

Whoops...

/goes back to the 1800s in his H.R. Welles-like time machine

Yes, I was using 'state' in the American sense of the word, I do think that caused some confusion after. I was using it to paralell with the 'states' of America. Texas is not a country, just like Wales is not a country. Texas may well have its own distinct culture and tradition, and almost its own language, but it is not a country.

Yes, about 500 years ago, Wales was a country. Wales chose to forsake its status as a 'country' to gain the economic benefits of uniting with England. Scotland did the same, as did Northern Ireland. Once upon a time, they all were countries. Once upon a time, Wessex, Yorkshire and Lancashire were essentially countries but united together under King Ethelred. They clearly no longer are separate countries. Neither are Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. They used to be, yes, but they no longer are.

Ethelred!! (great name)

yes, I am just bumping this for the purpose of seeing Mort argue some more. it amuses me

Just to reinforce what Mort said with some more facts, Texas was also it's own country once. It was founded by Sam Houston (or something) and gained independence from Mexico. After a bit of time, however, Texas chose to join the Union for various reasons, just like Whales or Scotland or whatever. You don't seen anyone calling Texas its own nation though.

Hey, if Texas wants to say it's its own country, then why the hell can't it? Haven't you ever heard of free speech?

Moscow is the capital of China.

France is a state in Australia.

The Berlin Wall can be seen from the moon.

Oranges are purple.

(That should keep him busy for a while).

England is people who drink tea, have bad teeth, AND funny accents.

Ummmm... that's not true.

Django is a cooler name though. If Django and Ethelred were in a death pit, with only a scrap of leather as their weapons, Django would whoop Ethelred's ace.

Django would also beat Ethelred in a guitar contest

*explodes*

I can't handle this either.

Back to the topic! Surely some of you are pro-England-as-a-country and can be vocal about it. There are plenty of people like that at my school!

Couldn't give a flying **** really.

Join Europe properly already.

Hmmm. Isn't England that place where they speak American with a funny accent?

You're all ignoring the proper definitions of the terms "country", "nation", and "state". True, in everyday speech they tend to be used synonymously, but in a discussion like this we need to make sure we're all using the proper definitions.

"Country" refers to a distinct area of land. England and the UK are both distinct areas of land, so they're both countries. The fact that England exists entirely as a part of the UK does not make it any less of a distinct area of land.

"Nation" refers to a distinct group of people. The English are a distinct group of people, so they're a nation. The Scottish and Welsh are also distinct groups of people, so they're also nations. All three exist in the larger country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

"State" refers to a distinct and sovereign political entity (government). The United Kingdom is a sovereign political entity, so it is a state. Scotland and Wales are not sovereign entities, so they are not states.

Confusion arises because the USA is divided into states which are not usually thought of as being sovereign. The confusion can be cleared up by looking at the name of the USA -- the United States of America. The US is a coalition of many independant states who have agreed to be subject to a common government (similar to how Canada and the UK are independant states who are [in theory, at least] subject to a common ruler, the Queen).

And for bonus marks: "Great Britain" is the name of the island upon which exist the countries of Scotland, Wales, and England, which together comprise the majority of the country of the United Kingdom. It's called "Great" Britain to distinguish it from "Lesser Britain," or "Brittany," on the French coast.

But by this logic, Texas or Quebec or even Antarctica are countries, which is almost completely uninanamous (sp?) balogna.

Also, if a distinct group of people is a nation, then are the occupants of a ghetto a nation?

Whoops, I guess I left something out -- a nation is a distinct group of people with common ancestry. A pretty important distinction.

As for the word country, it's really just a synonym for "land". So if you can say "the land of Texas" or "the land of Quebec", you should be able to say "the country of Quebec" or "Texas country". The only reason people don't do so is because, as I said earlier, people tend to use "country" to mean the same thing as "state". Nonetheless, you do still occasionally hear people refer to "hill country" or "river country" or "Howdy y'all, this here is Lone Star country," without meaning the political state as a whole.

Etymologically, "country" is derived from Latin "Terra Contrata", which means "land lying opposite", or "land spread out before one". "State" has a convoluted etymology based on the other meaning of the word (mode or condition of being), and has to do with the organisation of the land, and is a purely political term in this context.

Ok, I forget what my point was. If there's any other etymological nuts out there, this site is extremely awesome.

Yay! Smock finally got someone to have a real debate with Mort!!

[edit] and also, Krig, you are a huuuuuuuuuuge nerd! :p

(I may have to start compiling a nerd list, there's been loads of ridiculous nerdy goings on round here the last few days)

Only the last few days?


....



How long have you been here? :p

I mean moreso than usual

nerdiness in #teapot yesterday -

first this pic was linked to -

_________________________________________

<Dor|Mir> roses are #ff0000
<Dor|Mir> violets are #0000ff
<Dor|Mir> all of my base
<Dor|Mir> are belong to you
_________________________________________

<Burrie> Is it odd when I'm at college and using Remote Desktop to program at home?
<Dor|Mir> not at all
<Burrie> Yoy
<Dor|Mir> were my router not so hardcore, i'd constantly be shelling into this box from all over
_________________________________________


plus there's also Mort with his burning need for stats lately. :p

Ooh.

Okay, the definitions of 'country' and 'state' I don't have any problem with. The Acts of Union forsake their legal and political independence, so I guess I was referring to the 'states'. So England is not a country, and England is not a state. But is it a nation?

'Nation' doesn't seem to be a very clear-cut definition. 'Distinct group of people, with common ancestory'.

Firstly, what exactly constitutes as 'distinct group'? People from Yorkshire are considerably different to people from London, does that alone make Yorkshire a 'nation'? When talking about people, there are never distinct, discrete groups, there is always 'blending', people influencing and affecting other people. So how exactly do you draw the line on what is a 'distinct group'?

Secondly, where do you end, with the common ancestory? Americans don't have any common ancestory, unless you're a Native American or something.
If you go back far enough, England, Wales and Scotland have a common ancestory too. In the year 590, the Anglo-Saxons invaded Britain. They defeated the southern parts of Britain, and moved north. They did not defeat the far western parts, or far northern parts. These parts became known as 'Wales' and 'Scotland' respectively.

More nerdage!!

<DSettahr> -,-`- @

IIRC, it nearly was. Then Texas decided to join the Union so that it can get protection from Santa Anna.

Why thank you. I wear the title with pride.

As far as the definition of "nation", to be honest all three words are rather vague, and this one especially. It's really a word describing a level of family: you have your immediate family of mom and dad and siblings, your extended family of cousins and aunts and uncles, your tribe or clan of distant relatives, and your nation consisting of several related tribes all sprung from one ancestor. How far back that ancestor is varies from case to case, and there's really no hard and fast rule for determining it.

The issue is further clouded by the notion of adoption. Just as a kid can be adopted into your immediate family, an immigrant can be adopted into your nation. This is what happened with the US and Canada. Early Americans would have considered themselves an offshoot nation from the English nation, having common ancestry and culture. As immigrants swelled into the country, they were (eventually) adopted into the nation, which is why Americans tend to refer to themselves as a single nation (interestingly enough, the different tribes of Native Americans refer to themselves as "nations" as well, distinct from the larger American nation).

As for the Scots and Welsh, the Scots were actually quite distinct from the Welsh. Scotland was, at the time of the Roman withdrawl, populated mainly by Picts and Celtic Bretons (of the same people as the Welsh). However, the Scotts (or Scotti) themselves were actually invaders from Ireland who established a kingdom for themselves in what is now known as Scotland. The disparate groups eventually intermingled and became a distinct nation from the Bretons who became known as the Welsh.

All in all, the rules for distinguishing one nation from another are extremely vague. It's one of those things that are hard to define exactly, and yet people are still able to identify it when they see it -- like "patriotism" or "pornography". Theoretically it is, as I said above, the descendants of a common ancestor, but in practice it tends to be a little more complex than that.

Crap, now I'm late for work. Bah.

you must be kidding....

Grrrrrrrrrrrr!

England is a country! It's myyyyyyyyy country (or will be soon.)

Gee_4ce for PM!

I'm confused. Multiple people have stated that Wales signed up for "economic benefits". Have American history been lying to me? I was taught that Edward the First (Longshanks) took over Wales. I distinctly remember that he built a bunch of castles along western england. The welsh armies weren't organized enough to deal with it. Was I taught rubbish iduring 8th grade?

You're right, Edward did take over Wales, however he didn't legally annex it. It was still a separate state, but now it was ruled by the English. It wasn't until Henry the Eighth's Acts of Union that Wales was legally annexed into England, and Welsh law was replaced with English law.

Kinda like the situation in Iraq. The Americans went in there and took out the ruling government and set up their own system to keep order, much as Longshanks did. The only difference is that now, instead of annexing Iraq to make it another American state, they're setting it free to rule itself again.

So these countries didn't want to be with England? They were kind of forced into it?

Pretty much, as far as I can tell (I'm no expert in the subject, mind you). It's not like they had any choice in the matter, at any rate. Wales had been pretty much subjugated since Edward I, the Acts of Union happened because Henry VIII was worried about certain Welsh lords causing trouble for him.

Apparently the common people themselves actually welcomed the Acts of Union, because it made them an equal part of England, rather than an inferior conquered people. I don't think they were happy about being conquered in the first place, but by the time the Acts of Union came along, they were happy just for some peace and order, nevermind this independance stuff.