[HN Gopher] Is it time to retire the .gb top level domain?
___________________________________________________________________
Is it time to retire the .gb top level domain?
Author : robin_reala
Score : 81 points
Date : 2022-11-21 07:43 UTC (15 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (cddo.blog.gov.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (cddo.blog.gov.uk)
| gumby wrote:
| gb is a legacy of an earlier system when a naming system in the
| UK was big-endian: gb.ac.cambridge etc (example; I no longer
| remember any of them for real).
|
| But it ought to be appropriate for entities in GB but not in the
| UK, such as Isle of Man, Channel Islands, post-independent
| Scotland (whose members could also use .EU again).
| bitwize wrote:
| I think it should be handed over to the Game Boy emulation
| community.
|
| That is, provided that Baron Silas Greenback doesn't attempt to
| steal it in his bid to rule the world.
| ksec wrote:
| So even if they retire it, I could never get a .GB domain? If
| that is the case I would much rather they keep it as it is.
| Already__Taken wrote:
| I mean, lets get a couple more general elections done and see if
| we keep NI and Scotland...
| robin_reala wrote:
| "The United Kingdom of England and Wales" still theoretically
| works.
| frivoal wrote:
| That country could have an interestingly named neighbor: if
| Ireland and Scotland band together, they could be the United
| Republic of Ireland and Northern Great Britain.
| smcl wrote:
| I think they'd continue to refer to it as such but to me it
| feels a little odd. The "United Kingdom" was originally a
| union of the kingdoms of Scotland and England, the latter
| having already conquered and absorbed Wales. Losing one
| former-kingdom of that union and maintaining you're the
| "United Kingdom" feels a bit dishonest, a little bit
| "Democratic People's Republic ..." :)
|
| "The Kingdom of England and Wales" makes more sense but "KEW"
| and "EW" sound odd as acronyms, and will just lead to most of
| the world referring to the place as "England" (as many in the
| USA currently do tbh). That is, if they decide to keep the
| monarchy...
| Wildgoose wrote:
| I think it would become simply "Britain", seeing as
| "Britannia" originally referred to the Roman colonies of
| England and Wales.
|
| "Great Britain" is the whole island (including Scotland).
|
| "United Kingdom" would require continued Union with either
| Scotland or Northern Ireland.
| synotna wrote:
| The predecessor to the UK before Ireland was the Kingdom
| of Great Britain, so would be correct to go back to
| afterwards
|
| Of course to save money (and face) it probably wouldn't
| smcl wrote:
| "Britain" or "Kingdom of Britain" is a good idea, I
| hadn't considered that
| [deleted]
| Normille wrote:
| TRIVIA CORNER:
|
| In Irish Gaelic the island of Great Britain is _Breatain
| Mhor_ [Big Britain] and _Breatain Bheag_ [Little Britain]
| is the name for Wales. Obviously coming from the
| historical fact [much trumpeted by the Welsh] that they
| were the original Brits, driven into the mountainous west
| by the Saxon invaders. England in Irish is _Sasana_
| [obviously referring to Saxons] thus making an Englishman
| a _Sasanach_
|
| NOTE: These terms are similar in Scottish Gallic too.
| Hence the widely known Scots usage of _Sasanach_ as a
| derogatory term for an English person which, in reality,
| means calling them a 'Saxon'.
| dane-pgp wrote:
| If we're digging up weird etymological trivia, I will
| contribute the fact that the old Celtic word Iweriu (from
| which we get the name Eire) was interpreted by the
| ancient Greeks as Iouernia, leading to Tacitus calling
| the island Hibernia (influenced by the Latin word
| hibernus, thinking that it meant "land of winter").
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hibernia
| smcl wrote:
| I really appreciate these little tangents, got a good
| couple of "TIL"s from this thread
| synotna wrote:
| United Kingdom came from the GB+Ireland, not England &
| Scotland
|
| England + Scotland were the Kingdom of Great Britain
| smcl wrote:
| Ah good point, but the scenario in question involved both
| Ireland and Scotland leaving so "Great Britain" doesn't
| fit either.
| synotna wrote:
| If both leave, then the predecessor to the Kingdom of
| Great Britain was the Kingdom of England
|
| Wales was already part of England, as principality /
| having been conquered
|
| Though "United Kingdom of England" could argue that they
| kept the Irish crown :)
| smcl wrote:
| I feel like "Kingdom of England" would be off the table -
| you probably wouldn't want to antagonise the Welsh
| _immediately_ after they just watched NI and Scotland
| split off :)
| OJFord wrote:
| That's kind of like 'The United States of <two cities in the
| same state>'.
|
| (Aside: TIL I don't think there's a US state for which I can
| name two cities. Edit: ah, no - Austin & Houston TX.)
| oneeyedpigeon wrote:
| I'm not even American, and I can give you "Detroit" and
| "Flint" both in Michigan, off the top of my head.
| OJFord wrote:
| Well done? Obviously (?) I'm not saying nobody can, just
| thought I realised for a minute that I couldn't, then
| remembered the pair edited in. Fwiw I'm also not
| American, and have never heard of Flint. Also couldn't
| have told you Detroit was in Michigan anyway.
| oneeyedpigeon wrote:
| Sorry, I assumed you were American. In that case, I don't
| think it's all that rare not being able to name two
| cities in a state -- IME, a lot of capital cities are
| well known, but not necessarily second cities, etc. I
| think the capitals are often presented alongside their
| state as pairs, so phrases like "Detroit, Michigan" just
| stick in the mind. I also probably know Detroit, Michigan
| from either Eminem or Motown. Flint, Michigan is
| definitely more obscure -- I know that one from Michael
| Moore. I do have a bit of a love for Geography, place
| names, and US states in particular.
| drfuchs wrote:
| No doubt you're aware of San Francisco and Los Angeles,
| both in the state of California?
| OJFord wrote:
| Aware of them, yes. Able to tell you they're 'both in the
| state of California' (perhaps before now if I remember),
| no.
| vonzepp wrote:
| One option in the future is the that United Kingdom refers to
| the monarchy not the government. If Scotland became
| Independent, they could retain the monarchy. So you could
| argue the kingdoms are united, but different governments
| "serve" the monarch in different countries. This would
| require England and Wales to come up with a new name for
| their new country unless Wales also asked for independence.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| But that's already the case with many former colonies in
| the Commonwealth, but they're not considered part of the
| UK.
|
| E.g. the monarchy "rules" over Canada, but we're not in the
| UK.
| vonzepp wrote:
| True,but they were colonies that were under the British
| Empire, rather than being made part of the UK, that
| slowly gained dominion status granted self-governance
| that eventually came full governance. The United Kingdom
| was formed around 1707, between England and Scotland.
| Ireland was joined in 1801. Ireland left the United
| Kingdom in 1921 coming a dominion until becoming a
| republic and cutting all ties to the monarchy.
|
| My scenario doesn't abolish the United Kingdom, it
| abolishes it as a country, not as an entity. Which would
| be either largely symbolic, or something closer to the EU
| in design
| dane-pgp wrote:
| > My scenario doesn't abolish the United Kingdom, it
| abolishes it as a country
|
| But surely a kingdom has to have a defined territory over
| which the monarch is sovereign?
|
| Of course there is precedent for having a government in
| exile (which claims a territory it has no control over),
| and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (which doesn't
| claim any territory at all), but I think if you want the
| "UK" to refer to an institution, then it should stand for
| "the United Kingship".
| vonzepp wrote:
| The monarch would be sovereign, but he/she/they would
| execute their powers through different elected assemblies
| in different parts of the Kingdom. The two assemblies
| would have no influence over each other. Not sure the
| monarch has really executed its powers over government
| since ousting Lord Melbourne in the 1830s. So it really
| is just about tradition and pageantry.
| deergomoo wrote:
| It's The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
| Ireland, so presumably if Ireland were to ever unify we'd
| just be...the Kingdom of Great Britain?
| [deleted]
| gampleman wrote:
| .k?
|
| or better .kgb ;)
| oneeyedpigeon wrote:
| I'd prefer (for two reasons) the Republic of Great
| Britain -- now that would be a cool TLD!
| ben_w wrote:
| I'm not sure it does? IIRC, the Kingdom of Scotland merged
| with the Kingdom of England as (theoretical) equal partners,
| but Wales was just straight up conquered, and to the extent
| it's got any connection with royalty (the Senedd Cymru is
| democratic so I don't count it for this title), I think it's
| just leading it's name to royal titles, and hasn't even still
| officially been a principality since 1542?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Wales
| nirimda wrote:
| I don't think this historical matter is going to be
| relevant. The leftover bits will want to claim continuity
| with the preceding state, and they will want to use the UK
| name. But even if there's no consideration giving to
| branding, thanks to the Welsh Senedd there's now a distinct
| category of Welsh law, different from English law. So while
| the union of England and Wales might have been brought
| about by the extinguishment of the Welsh state, such as it
| may be, the union is being continued through the
| regeneration of some of the aspects of statehood.
| steanne wrote:
| the kingdom of southern great britain?
| Milner08 wrote:
| Does it? As a welsh person it hurts me to say that Wales was
| never a kingdom in the United Kingdom as its was under
| English rule for a long time before that came about. You
| could I guess still use the name, but its weird.
|
| I would love to see England get a devolved government, with
| all governments getting equal power and the UK government
| overseeing defense, etc. Sort of like a Federal government.
| walthamstow wrote:
| If we do federalism we would need to break England down
| quite a bit.
|
| Yours, a Londoner.
|
| (We have less political power than Scotland, which is half
| our population. Wales is even smaller)
| [deleted]
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| sharkbird2 wrote:
| Honestly, if it were up to me, my solution to this would be to
| not solve it all. There's only a finite amount of time and energy
| available in any organization and you have to make sure you spend
| it on the problems that are worth solving. That have a
| significant payoff of some sort. This doesn't seem to be one of
| those.
| d--b wrote:
| Why even ask the question? It just opens the door to a no answer,
| which doesn't make any sense since the domain is already not used
| for anything.
| ROARosen wrote:
| > There is a risk that if handed back another country might try
| to claim it for themselves
|
| I really don't get this. What exactly is the _risk_? If they don
| 't need it why do they need to make sure no one else gets it?
| counttheforks wrote:
| Old domains which are still referenced somewhere will change
| ownership and can now be used for phishing or other nefarious
| activities.
|
| Also it looks official, I'm sure plenty of people would fall
| for gov.gb if the site looked official enough.
| advisedwang wrote:
| Risk 1: Impersonation. ie, someone sets up hmrc.gov.gb and
| tells people "pay your taxes here" and scams a bunch of people.
|
| Risk 2: Economic loss. People selling .gb domains might take
| away from .uk revenue.
|
| Risk 3: Political fallout. Perhaps Chagos Islanders somehow get
| control .gb and demand that the UK give up .io in exchange.
| There's plenty of geopolitics that could get brought up.
|
| Risk 4: opportunity cost. Perhaps later some major use for .gb
| arises, but by then it's too late.
|
| These are all pretty small risks, but this is the kind of thing
| they may have in mind.
| [deleted]
| londons_explore wrote:
| If the domain has ever been used for anything, there are
| serious security reasons to never reuse it.
|
| For example, imagine your recovery email address for something
| important is bob@something.gb. If 'gb' is ever reassigned to
| someone else, they can now get access to anything ever
| registered at a gb address.
|
| This is the reason things like gmail accounts are never
| recycled to another user. Early services like hotmail would
| recycle accounts, but it has since become an 'obviously bad
| idea'.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| The post does say that only one domain has ever been
| registered and it's been defunct for decades. The risk is
| probably zero.
| est wrote:
| should retire those bullshit for-profit TLDs like .google
| whatatita wrote:
| Nah, they don't hurt anyone.
| aftbit wrote:
| I disagree - they hurt all of the brands that were tricked or
| pressured into buying them to prevent someone else from going
| after them. If you look at e.g. .ford or .audi, they only
| have a small handful of sites, all of which could have been
| subdomains of .ford.com or .audi.com without any real loss.
| Y_Y wrote:
| They hurt me.
| mightypirate wrote:
| layer8 wrote:
| They should reserve .ew now in case both North Ireland and
| Scotland exit.
| JaDogg wrote:
| Sounds useful for game boy / retro gaming enthusiasts
| samwillis wrote:
| There is a significant chance that Northern Ireland will hold the
| referendum on independence that they are entitled to (part of the
| Good Friday agreement) at some point in the not too distant
| future. And if they do, there is a significant chance they will
| vote for independence or joining the south.
|
| If that happens, what happens to the UK? Does it just become "The
| United Kingdom of Great Britain", dropping "and Northern
| Ireland". Or do we stop using "The United Kingdom" as it sort of
| ceases to exist in its own right and revert to just "Great
| Britain"?
|
| This is a debate the UK government will want to avoid at all
| costs. I'm amazed they are even considering talking about the
| ".gb" domain, it bring up difficult topics.
|
| It's sort of schrodinger's domain, don't check on it and it both
| exists and doesn't exist at the same time!
| claviola wrote:
| You'd still have Scotland and Wales there.
| monocasa wrote:
| Scotland is planning another independence vote in a year or
| so. After Brexit there's a good chance it'll pass this time.
| spacedcowboy wrote:
| "A good chance" doing a lot of work in that sentence.
| monocasa wrote:
| Not really. It almost passed last time, and one of the
| major reasons people voted against it was because it was
| unclear what that would mean for their status in the EU.
| That's no longer a concern thanks to brexit.
| gmtx725 wrote:
| it was just called "Kingdom of Great Britain" before 1801 when
| it only included England Scotland and Wales
| samwillis wrote:
| .gb it is then...
| Iwan-Zotow wrote:
| should be .kgb
| sb057 wrote:
| The kingdoms that are united are England and Scotland. It was
| originally:
|
| the United Kingdom of Great Britain
|
| then after Ireland was formally annexed:
|
| the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
|
| then after (southern) Ireland broke off:
|
| the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
| thesuitonym wrote:
| It would become the United Kingdom of England and Scotland.
| Though maybe they would acknowledge Wales for once.
| oneeyedpigeon wrote:
| "United Kingdom of Great Britain" is a lot catchier than
| "United Kingdom of England, Scotland, and -- by the way --
| Wales" :)
| LightG wrote:
| Just Britain, these days ... if that.
| nanna wrote:
| Northern Ireland's departure would probably correlate with
| Scotland's, so more likely it'd be the United Kingdom of
| England and Wales. Catchy.
| kmonsen wrote:
| At that point Wales is probably ready to call it a day as
| well.
|
| Part of the problem is as the empire is shrinking London
| and England becomes more dominating. Each piece leaving
| reinforces this so I think if Northern Ireland and Scotland
| leaves Wales will do so too. And perhaps even smaller
| pieces although that doesn't look likely today.
|
| Another factor is that Scotland stayed last time as border
| trade is the most important for Scotland. Not that UK is
| crashing it's more likely they would leave.
| adql wrote:
| "United Kingdom of not so great Britain"
| kmonsen wrote:
| Great Britain is the island, if it's only Northern Ireland
| leaving all of the Great Britain island would still be in.
| mananaysiempre wrote:
| Fun fact: there is, in fact, a Little Britain--Brittany
| (Bretagne) in France, across the Channel from England.
| c7b wrote:
| There were similar debates prior to the Scottish independence
| referendum. I think the takeaway back then was that Scotland
| could leave the nation and actually stay part of the monarchy
| (similar to how Australia, Canada,... still view the King as
| their head of state), but the UK could keep its acronym and
| just rename itself to be the United Kingdom of [whatever
| remains of it].
| N19PEDL2 wrote:
| One day it might become the United Kingdom of England and
| Wales.
| andylynch wrote:
| No- UK always meant GB and (parts of) Ireland; Wales has
| been part of the Kingdom of England for far longer, nearly
| 500 years. Though the chances of Welsh secession would
| increase if NI and Scotland leave!
| umanwizard wrote:
| Nowadays however Wales is not normally thought of as part
| of England, so I suspect that if everyone but the two of
| them leave the Union they'll have to come up with a name
| other than Kingdom of England.
| Kaibeezy wrote:
| Where it's heading is United Kingdom of the City of London and
| England.
| nerf3000 wrote:
| Retiring a TLD is cruel to anyone using the domain, especially
| with the prevalence of TLS. Just as retiring "land" that someone
| paid for and is living on would be cruel.
|
| The tendency for technologies to evaporate and be migrated to
| replacement for $reasons is too frequent.
|
| Domain TLDs should remain constant. If .gb no longer represents a
| geopolitical entity then transition it to a new manager with a
| contract that stipulates maintenance of established domains.
| Don't set precedent for pulling TLDs out from under people.
| thomasedwards wrote:
| > It is staggeringly unlikely that you would ever have
| encountered a .gb domain in the wild. The only domain which is
| registered, though inactive, is hmg.gb - standing for His
| Majesty's Government. The domain was originally created in the
| mid 1980s, and abandoned at some point in the 1990s. There are
| no active domains which use .gb and today, the government only
| uses .gov.uk for its domains.
|
| Third paragraph.
| connordoner wrote:
| This comment sums up HN perfectly.
| whatatita wrote:
| Did you read the article? It says right at the beginning that
| only one domain was ever registered, and it's been inacite for
| over thirty years.
|
| Whilst I agree with the sentiment that TLDs shouldn't be pulled
| out from under people, replies without reading the article are
| just noise.
| tokamak wrote:
| But when United Kingdom will split, what will Britain use?
| flavius29663 wrote:
| lb - Little Britan (cough cough, computer says no!)
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| .sb (Small Britain) ?
| RugnirViking wrote:
| that's brittany (a region of france). "Great" britain is to
| distinguish it from there.
| medstrom wrote:
| It's more the other way around. The Romans called the isles
| Britannia Major and Britannia Minor (now Great Britain and
| Ireland). Some time after Rome fell, Britons started to
| settle in another region they called Armorica, so it
| changed name to Brittany. "Small Britain" could be either
| Ireland or Brittany at this point.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittany#Etymology
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain_(place_name)
| s_dev wrote:
| .ie, .scot, .cymru, .wales, .irish
| Iwan-Zotow wrote:
| .ei - eastern Ireland
| gerikson wrote:
| .ie? Already used by Ireland.
| s_dev wrote:
| Correct and the breakup of the UK will likely lead to a
| United Ireland. The real question is what will England use
| for a TLD? They've never considered their place in the
| world that isn't in reference to the UK or GB because to
| them the two are interchangeable.
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| > Correct and the breakup of the UK will likely lead to a
| United Ireland
|
| Unless things go really pear-shaped in the UK, this is
| unlikely within the next twenty years.
| selfhoster11 wrote:
| Things have been going very pear-shaped in the UK for at
| least 6 years now.
| cratermoon wrote:
| > Unless things go really pear-shaped in the UK
|
| That doesn't seem terribly unlikely in within the next
| twenty years.
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| Things would need to be _really, really bad_ for the
| Unionist population of NI before they 'd vote to join
| Ireland. I'm honestly not sure that anything bar the
| total collapse of the other island would do it, tbh ;)
| Aromasin wrote:
| Things weren't particularly bad, and the UK managed to
| vote itself out of the EU and into recession. All you
| need is a single vote and a particularly apathetic
| populace to change the political landscape forever.
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| I strongly encourage you to visit Northern Ireland and
| talk to people (even just see the peace walls) as this is
| far more like the 18th century than it is like the 21st
| (in the sense that religion/ethnicity/history is the
| predominant driving force behind voting patterns).
| cal85 wrote:
| Counterpoint: England's national teams in the country's
| most popular spectator sports (football, cricket, rugby)
| are all "England".
| Veen wrote:
| > Correct and the breakup of the UK will likely lead to a
| United Ireland.
|
| Will it? I know some Northern Irish who would not on
| board with that.
| oneeyedpigeon wrote:
| _Some_ , of course -- this is why it hasn't already
| happened. However, in the last NI census:
|
| 32% identified as British only, 29% identified as Irish
| only and 20% as Northern Irish only.
|
| In 2011, the figures were 40% British only, 25% Irish
| only and 21% Northern Irish only.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| I think you're reading a "without bloodshed" into the
| sentence that's definitely not in there.
| gerikson wrote:
| So... England will not be part of the FUK (former UK)?
| Iwan-Zotow wrote:
| .ei - eastern Ireland
| Tepix wrote:
| Isn't the .IO domain a lot more controversial with the UK
| expelling the population of the islands?
| https://www.thewebmaster.com/archived/io-tld-top-level-domai...
| toyg wrote:
| FYI that page lacks recent developments:
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/03/uk-agrees-to-n...
|
| It looks like a politically isolated and weakened UK government
| has had to relent, and will finally hand over the territory to
| Mauritius. It's possibly the only positive outcome of the
| Brexit saga.
| dane-pgp wrote:
| Positive for Mauritius, maybe. It's not clear that the
| Mauritian government would be any more likely to remove the
| US base there, and will instead be happy to just receive the
| rent that the US is currently paying the UK for it.
|
| One might also note that the Chagossians who lived in the
| British Indian Ocean Territory never actually owned any land
| there, nor were they self-sufficient in terms of food.[0]
| Also, the Chagossians were given[1] severance pay for their
| work there, and compensation for starting a new life in the
| Seychelles or Mauritius, back in the 1970s. Then, in the
| 1980s, the UK government paid out millions more in
| reparations[2], and this year the government offered them
| British citizenship too.[3]
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagossians#Eviction
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_expulsion_of_the_Cha
| gos...
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_expulsion_of_the_Cha
| gos...
|
| [3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/23/chagos-
| islands...
| toyg wrote:
| It's still a step in the right direction, from both moral
| and practical perspectives, for what is a clear historical
| wrong. Among other things, it will lay responsibility for
| the status quo where it really resides, i.e. the US.
| ben_w wrote:
| Controversy hardly ever seems to influence the British
| government.
|
| Even the linked document is more of "Huh, what's this in the
| draw? Anyone using it?"
| Iwan-Zotow wrote:
| In a need of .kgb top level domain
| ClassyJacket wrote:
| A very rare break of Betteridge's Law of Headlines:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...
| notpushkin wrote:
| I'm not sure why doesn't the UK just start selling the .gb
| domains. Seems like a nice suffix for domain hacks (64.gb
| anybody?) and in general.
| bombcar wrote:
| I look forward to the official renaming to the "United Kingdom
| of Giga Byte and Northern Ireland" and then we can all fight
| over if it should have been Gibi Byte.
| nimish wrote:
| Someone in Gibraltar should have created .gib IMO
| przemub wrote:
| There's a huge push in the UK not to use GB abbreviation unless
| necessary, because it excludes Northern Ireland.
|
| Similarly, since last year international car plates bear UK
| sign, not GB as it had been for a hundred years before.
| nlnn wrote:
| Indeed - there are a couple of good diagrams that attempt to
| illustrate what each term encompasses, e.g.: https://upload.w
| ikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/British_...
| midasuni wrote:
| Why are England and Wales in once circular but Scotland
| isn't?
| dane-pgp wrote:
| Wales is (or was[0]) a principality, historically ruled
| over by the monarch of England and thus a constituent
| part of the Kingdom of England[1].
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_in_Wales_Acts_1535
| _and_15...
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_England
| [deleted]
| selectodude wrote:
| England and Wales share a legal system that is distinct
| from the one in Scotland and NI, which is the only thing
| I could think would explain that. Wales didn't have its
| own parliament until 1998 and was entirely governed by
| London.
| arethuza wrote:
| Wasn't Wales annexed by force into England while Scotland
| joined with England as an act of desperation following an
| amazingly incompetent attempt at setting up a colony?
| iso1631 wrote:
| Well there were two joinings. In the first one the
| Scottish King (James VI) took over the English throne
| after Elizabeth I died.
|
| King James then began to try to create a unified state,
| merging first the churches. Of course there was then that
| little Cromwell bustup, but after that James VII of
| Scotland was on the throne and causing religious grief,
| his daughter and her Dutch husband then took over.
| arethuza wrote:
| Wasn't that more like _trying_ to merge the churches - or
| did I imagine the unique misery of Church of Scotland
| services at school? :-)
| dazzawazza wrote:
| The inclusion of Ireland in the British Isles is now
| contentious. We're not blowing each other up over it but it
| is, at least unofficially, not the position of either side
| any more.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles_naming_dispute
| chungy wrote:
| I never thought a geographical term would be that
| contentious. To me, it sounds similar to objecting to the
| continent(s) known as "the Americas" simply because the
| USA is often known world-wide as just "America".
| umanwizard wrote:
| Plenty of people in other parts of the Americas do object
| to "America" being used as shorthand for the USA.
| [deleted]
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| I find it annoying that any time you prepare for the test
| or read official textbook, such diagrams are never
| provided. Its alsways dome super spesific textual
| information
| 323 wrote:
| Currency should be changed too then from GBP to UKP.
| donalhunt wrote:
| Sterling (aka the GBP) is used outside the UK.
|
| The United Kingdom also allows some regions to issue bank
| notes that are considered currency but not legal tender
| (i.e. then can be refused for payment of a debt in favour
| of currency issued by the Bank of England).
|
| See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banknotes_of_the_pound_
| sterl...
| pestatije wrote:
| What should be the correct demonym? ...Ukeyish?
| Veen wrote:
| Confusingly, it's British.
| oneeyedpigeon wrote:
| That would upset an awful lot of people living in
| Northern Ireland, though. I'd be up for adopting "United
| Kingdomer".
| chrisseaton wrote:
| The unionists there already describe themselves as
| British. The republicans don't but they wouldn't want to
| be UKish either, obviously.
| markdown wrote:
| What's with GB at the Olympics though?
| IanCal wrote:
| That's contentious. Technically the full name is the "Great
| Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic Team". Broadly the
| answer is "branding" and there isn't a strong enough push
| to change it.
| walthamstow wrote:
| ~Each island competes as one.~
|
| Edit - oops incorrect.
| argentier wrote:
| For the Olympics you are incorrect but it varies.
|
| Rugby - one team for the island
|
| Soccer - one federation for each polity on the island,
| but Derry City plays in the League of Ireland (Republic
| of Ireland). Two international teams.
|
| Cricket - one team for the island
|
| Etc etc. There is some tiresome hand-wringing every time
| an athlete has decide on their allegiance.
|
| Basically, Ireland is a political Mandelbrot set.
| Leherenn wrote:
| They don't at the Olympics.
| another-dave wrote:
| > Each island competes as one.
|
| I don't think that's technically correct. Anyone in NI
| has Irish citizenship (who wants it), so any NI athlete
| can represent Ireland.
|
| "Team GB" is the official team of the whole of the UK
| though, including Northern Ireland.
| rocketbop wrote:
| You are correct, the official name of the team is `Great
| Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic Team`
| benwad wrote:
| Weirdly, NI Olympic athletes can choose to compete for
| either Ireland or the UK:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_GB#Calls_for_renaming
| chrisseaton wrote:
| And there are many other overlaps like this - such as RoI
| people can join the British Army.
| another-dave wrote:
| I think Northern Ireland is unique in that regard, where
| every person holds (or at least, is entitled to) dual
| citizenship from birth.
| OJFord wrote:
| I guess HKers are kind of simultaneously Chinese and not
| Chinese until they get old enough to form an opinion.
|
| And I'm not sure if they actually have 'dual citizenship
| from birth', but South Korea has an open door policy to
| North Korean.. immigrants/refugees.
| justahuman74 wrote:
| I think one of the parents of the child has to be a UK or
| Ireland citizen. For example, German parents resident in
| and having a child in Northern Ireland, the child is only
| a UK citizen (and perhaps German? I don't know that part
| of it)
| noodlesUK wrote:
| UK nationality law is exceptionally complex (probably the
| most complex in the world). Irish nationality law is less
| complex but inherited a lot of warts from the UK
|
| In general if you're born in NI and your parents are
| settled (that is they have permanent residency or are EU
| citizens with derived status) or are UK/IE citizens you
| are both British and Irish.
| wiredfool wrote:
| If one of your parents is NI born, it entitles you to
| have both UK (by descent) and Irish (by Good Friday)
| citizenship. Couple this with being born in the US, and
| my kids have 3 citizenships from birth.
| [deleted]
| Leherenn wrote:
| The reasoning is that UK is still not actually correct
| (though more correct) because the Olympic committee also
| oversees places like the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands
| and so on which are not technically part of the UK. Then it
| seems they keep it because of tradition and because the
| country code is GBR.
| dontlaugh wrote:
| That is indeed the reasoning.
|
| Of course, those of us that don't think Northern Ireland
| should continue to be colonised would like GB used
| everywhere.
| [deleted]
| rocketbop wrote:
| The Ulster Plantations were 400 years ago, calling it a
| colony now is beyond a stretch and sounds childish.
| dontlaugh wrote:
| British police and military were killing Irish people in
| the north around 30 years ago. The north is still under
| British occupation. When that ends and the island is re-
| unified, we can start saying that colonisation is being
| addressed.
| bearmode wrote:
| >When that ends and the island is re-unified
|
| Why are you trying to force 2 million people to live in a
| country that most of them explicitly don't want to?
| robin_reala wrote:
| Reunification will happen when the majority of them _do_
| want to, and that's probably not that far away given the
| chart at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Ireland#Nor
| thern_Irelan...
| bearmode wrote:
| And that's absolutely fine, I'll cheer them on in the
| reunification process when that time comes. But at the
| moment they don't, and it's silly to suggest that it's
| still a colony until then.
| morelisp wrote:
| Two years, obviously.
|
| https://memory-
| alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Irish_Unification_of_20...
| dontlaugh wrote:
| I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything. I'd like
| the British state to stop forcing NI to be part of the
| UK. What the people of NI then choose to do is up to
| them.
| umanwizard wrote:
| The Good Friday Agreement, which the UK is party to,
| explicitly gives Northern Ireland the right to leave the
| UK if the majority of people there want to.
| bearmode wrote:
| > I'd like the British state to stop forcing NI to be
| part of the UK.
|
| This isn't happening.
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| > British police and military were killing Irish people
| in the north around 30 years ago.
|
| Technically most of the residents of NI were British
| citizens at the time this was happening.
|
| Additionally, it wasn't just the British engaging in
| violence, there were at least three sides
| (nationalist/loyalist/government).
|
| > The north is still under British occupation
|
| I'm pretty sure that I could find a _lot_ of people
| (almost certainly a majority) of NI residents who 'd
| disagree with this statement.
|
| > When that ends and the island is re-unified,
|
| I hope (as someone from the Republic) that this happens,
| but we'll need a bunch of planning and time to make sure
| this doesn't turn out like Brexit (a close result leading
| to lots of problems over the following few years).
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| >> killing Irish people in the north around 30 years ago.
|
| > residents of NI were British citizens at the time
|
| That's how it works for every independence movement - a
| smaller entity asserts it's right to exist outside the
| boundary of a larger one. Fighting smaller entity is
| self-harm by the larger entity.
|
| Look at the Chechen war in Russia, it was the same.
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| Ah no, the Irish situation is very very different.
|
| For a start, the Ulster Protestants were the majority in
| NI until this year (100 years after partition).
|
| And while I (as an Irish person) would love to see a
| united Ireland, I completely condemn the violence that
| was used to attempt it.
|
| Again, I understand _why_ it happened, but 3.5k deaths
| over 30 years was not an acceptable price to get to the
| negotiation table (essentially repeating a deal that was
| shot down by the Unionists in 1972).
| rocketbop wrote:
| > When that ends and the island is re-unified, we can
| start saying that colonisation is being addressed.
|
| I objected to your use of the word 'colony' as it does
| not describe Northern Ireland. The social injustices you
| are referencing, and there have been many, do not make
| that word any more appropriate.
|
| There is already a framework affirmed by the voters of
| both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland that
| the a plebiscite on unification can be held. There is no
| occupation, and your language does nothing constructive.
|
| It is also incorrect to say 're-unified' as there never
| was an all island Irish state.
| bearmode wrote:
| NI is no more a colony than the US or Australia are today.
|
| Personally I'm all about self-determination. If the people
| of NI want to return the land to Eire, then nobody should
| stand in their way. But that doesn't seem to be the case
| right now, even though support for reunification has been
| increasing in recent years.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| NI was explicitly created as a hack to an all-Ireland
| independence referendum at the start of 20th century. It
| was a landslide victory for a one-Ireland state and the
| UK created this never-seen-before entity as a response.
|
| I'm not even Irish and certainly have no skin in this
| game but what the UK did to Ireland over the centuries is
| disgraceful, and it clearly is struggling to come to
| terms with it.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| As a recent tourist, NI seemed far less developed than
| the Republic of Ireland to me, as if everyone there had
| moved to England for jobs and now that region only
| survives thanks to life support from London.
|
| Much of the infrastructure there reminded me more of
| post-communist Eastern European countries than western
| Europe, but then so do many parts of England (no
| offense).
|
| I wonder if NI wouldn't be better off part of the
| Republic and the EU, now with Brexit and everything?
| mathieuh wrote:
| As someone who grew up and lives in NI, I'm suspicious
| that the awful state of the place is because the UK knows
| NI will rejoin Ireland in the nearish future, so why
| would they invest in infrastructure here?
|
| It used to be the case that the roads would get
| noticeably worse as you crossed the border into the
| republic, now the situation is reversed.
| bearmode wrote:
| >I'm suspicious that the awful state of the place is
| because the UK knows NI will rejoin Ireland in the
| nearish future, so why would they invest in
| infrastructure here?
|
| NI receives a disproportionately large amount of money
| from the UK gov compared to other UK nations.
| mathieuh wrote:
| And that money still isn't enough, because NI is still
| suffering the effects of the troubles and a governance
| situation which is not fit for purpose. Everything here
| is in a state of disrepair, the NHS isn't functioning,
| the far-right Christian-fundamentalist party which is the
| second biggest party refuses to do anything for reasons
| that exist only in their own heads, etc. etc.
|
| The place needs to be actively developed, not repeatedly
| patched up and sent on its way to hobble along.
| bearmode wrote:
| I agree with you, I'm just pointing out that the lack of
| investment in infrastructure isn't a NI-specific issue;
| rather it's part of central gov policy for the whole of
| the UK. And has been for decades. Every part of the UK is
| crumbling through lack of investment.
|
| NI is a little better-off than much of England in that
| regard, outside of Tory towns and villages. My home town
| never recovered after Thatcher.
| toyg wrote:
| Probably not, in the sense that it's a backwater anyway -
| but at least it's currently a backwater enjoying
| significant subsidies from the UK government, money they
| likely wouldn't get from Dublin.
|
| Unification will happen when the advantage of receiving
| such money will be clearly be offset by the disadvantage
| of having a broken political system (NI regional
| government is boycotted by unionists, while the national
| government is boycotted by republicans). As money reduces
| further and further while annoyances get bigger and
| bigger (because of an entrenched "England-first"
| government pursuing policies like Brexit), that threshold
| gets closer and closer.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| _> enjoying significant subsidies from the UK government_
|
| Those subsidies don't seem to be enough to save it when
| the infrastructure is crumbling and everyone is moving
| abroad for jobs. Also, many countries don't need
| subsidies, they need opportunities. Subsidies are like
| paying a crackehead to buy more drugs instead of getting
| him a home, warm meal, a shower and schooling for job
| applications.
|
| _> money they likely wouldn't get from Dublin_
|
| They would get it from the EU then, and probably a lot
| more, as the UK gov is now struggling financially to stay
| solvent. The EU can very generous if you can play the
| game right. Just look at Poland 20 years ago and Poland
| today, the difference EU funds and the EU open market
| made, is night and day. It has also benefiter the
| Republic of Ireland. I doubt they would have been in the
| same state today without EU membership. For all its
| faults, the EU has been a force for good many times.
| Another English speaking region joining the EU could be a
| mutual benefit.
| thrwyoilarticle wrote:
| The same 'know what's best for em' attitude that was used
| by the US nationals funding IRA terrorism.
| iso1631 wrote:
| > all-Ireland independence referendum at the start of
| 20th century
|
| So which one was that then? Was this before the
| Representation of the people act or were women and
| working class men still banned?
|
| > It was a landslide victory for a one-Ireland state and
| the UK created this never-seen-before entity as a
| response.
|
| In the 1918 election in Ulster 66% voted for unionist
| parties.
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| > NI was explicitly created as a hack to an all-Ireland
| independence referendum at the start of 20th century. It
| was a landslide victory for a one-Ireland state and the
| UK created this never-seen-before entity as a response.
|
| The UK government didn't have a lot of choice, the Ulster
| Protestants would almost certainly have fought a civil
| war if the full island was granted domininion status.
|
| The boundary commission was problematic, but the real
| issue post partition was the removal of PR by the NI
| government. I think that if the ballot box hadn't
| essentially been stacked against Catholics we might not
| have seen the Troubles.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > The boundary commission was problematic
|
| India, Pakistan, I am seeing a pattern.
|
| Even if you get independace from england, you won't leave
| in one piece.
| dontlaugh wrote:
| The US and Australia don't have the British military as
| the ultimate enforcer of state power. They each have
| their own local armies, accepted as legitimate by
| Britain. Northern Ireland's army was never accepted as
| legitimate by the British state, they were even fought
| directly for decades.
| bearmode wrote:
| The only reason for that is NI never voted/fought for
| secession from the UK - just relatively small groups
| without popular support in NI, but with the support of
| Ireland.
| DocTomoe wrote:
| Actually, they did, back when Ireland as a whole voted
| for independence. That that particular part of the
| country may have chosen to remain does not, under
| democratic rules, allow for it to be separated from the
| main country, much like Scotland and Wales could not have
| argue to remain in the EU because their respective
| populations were overwhelmingly in favour of remain.
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| > Actually, they did, back when Ireland as a whole voted
| for independence.
|
| Can you point to a vote by the Irish people in favour of
| independence?
|
| I'm pretty sure you can't given that no such vote has
| ever taken place.
| argentier wrote:
| There's this:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_Irish_general_election
|
| The IRA derived their 'legitimacy' from it.
| iso1631 wrote:
| The one where the votes for unionists in Ulster
| outweighed nationalists 2:1?
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| That's an election, not a referendum.
|
| And to be quite frank, you are probably thinking of the
| Provisional IRA when you put legitimacy in quotes, where
| as this was the original IRA, who basically have nothing
| in common with the Provos (as they were called when I
| were a lad) except the name.
| vonzepp wrote:
| When Ireland voted for independence, it was officially
| part of the UK. The UK as a whole would have voted
| against independence for Ireland. Does that mean under
| democratic rules Ireland was not allowed for it to be
| separated from the main country? We'd be better off
| asking why unionist don't want to join rather than
| telling them they have no choice.
| argentier wrote:
| I don't think anyone is telling them that: in fact their
| concerns are absurdly well catered for, though you
| wouldn't know it listening to the constant complaints.
|
| We can split hairs about what is and is not democratic
| until the end of time, but the debate takes place in a
| historical vacuum: the creation of Northern Ireland was a
| response to a very specific set of circumstances, and I
| don't think yak-shaving about democratic niceties casts
| any light.
|
| It is moot anyway, because there is no prospect of
| changing Northern Ireland's status without democratic
| sanction. Which vote of course takes place at the
| pleasure of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Northern
| Ireland.
| vonzepp wrote:
| It is not quite at the pleasure of His Majesty's
| Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It is defined in
| law that if there are grounds to believe it would pass
| they would be required to hold a border poll. This could
| be decided in court, as in if say opinion polling was at
| 70% and nationalist parts were winning 70% of the votes,
| and the Secretary of State refused to hold the poll. They
| could be brought to court and a judge could rule the
| secretary has no grounds to refuse.
| argentier wrote:
| The levels of support for the small groups that fought
| primarily against small groups on the other side were
| never really gauged. However the political successors to
| the only one of those groups that really counted is
| currently the largest party in Northern Ireland.
|
| The Brits left split polities in quite a few places as
| they decolonized. Almost as if it was policy.
| twixfel wrote:
| Northern Ireland is not a colony according to the common
| and widely understood meaning of the word colony (or in
| the opinion of the UN). If you make up your own
| definition based on "local armies" (whatever relevance or
| meaning that has, not sure)... then yes you can
| personally call anything anything you like... but it has
| no meaning to the rest of us and doesn't really make any
| sense.
| _dain_ wrote:
| cstross wrote:
| It's worth noting that "Great Britain" is very specifically
| the name of a geographical land mass -- an island off the
| coast of Europe that currently includes England, Wales, and
| Scotland.
|
| In political terms it _doesn 't_ include NI ... or the Isle
| of Man, the Isle of Wight, and the Channel Islands.
|
| (Also, in event of Scottish independence, using "GB" for the
| nationality would cause confusion because post-independence
| there'd be two separate nations on the GB land mass. See also
| [minor] confusion over "Ireland".)
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > In political terms it doesn't include NI ...
|
| It often does - for example someone from NI can join the GB
| Olympics team.
| vonzepp wrote:
| Indeed, but someone from NI can also join the Irish
| Olympic team. I guess the use of GB rather than UK is a
| way of addressing that sensitive question by not
| including NI as default in one team.
| wiredfool wrote:
| Also Football and Rugby. In general the sporting
| associations have a conditionally Unified Ireland policy,
| where it's really flexible which countries an athlete can
| compete for.
| mprev wrote:
| Sorry to be picky, but the Isle of Man and Channels Islands
| aren't part of the UK either.
|
| Politically, IoW is part of England and so GB, albeit
| geographically a separate island.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Jesus christ, just when I thought I understood what all
| the convoluted UK/GB/etc names meant, now I discover I
| need to add "Crown Dependencies" to the list? That turn
| out to be _neither_ part of the UK _nor_ British Overseas
| Territories?
|
| I swear they're just messing with us. Who comes up with
| these things...
| whatatita wrote:
| The always relevant CGP Grey:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10
|
| Skip to 5:00 for a beautiful diagram outlining the mess.
| donalhunt wrote:
| Probably explains the lack of a constitution too. No one
| dares to try and document it!
| russellbeattie wrote:
| I assumed this link would have been one of the top
| comments! All the other links in this thread combined
| don't shed light on the topic nearly as well as CGP
| Grey's video.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| As someone from Northern Ireland who is often frustrated by
| British companies who don't ship to or provide services to
| this side of the sea, I think having this clearly indicated
| by a .gb TLD would be great.
| bombcar wrote:
| This is like "free shipping to the US" and then you learn
| that they mean contiguous US and Alaska and Hawaii are not
| included.
| adra wrote:
| Alaska is continental but not continuous. Just imagine
| living in Porto Rico or any of the other random us
| protectorates that have no legal voting authority.
| rpastuszak wrote:
| *contiguous not continuous (not the same thing, could
| just mean "sharing a common border")
|
| *Puerto Rico not Porto Rico
| blackshaw wrote:
| British companies often charge extra to ship to the
| "Highlands and Islands", meaning northern Scotland (one
| of the most sparsely populated areas in Europe.)
| GauntletWizard wrote:
| I am surprised by this; Does the Royal Mail charge more?
| Like, significantly so? USPS charges more for shipping
| cross-country, certainly, but I consider their rates[1]
| pretty fair for the distance involved.
|
| [1] https://pe.usps.com/text/dmm300/Notice123.htm#_c052 -
| For clarity, Zone 7 is cross-country for the most part,
| Zone 8 is mostly "Non-contiguous" (Alaska and Hawaii),
| and zone 9 is "Foreign but US Sovereignty" (Military
| bases, Embassies, Minor Outlying Islands). The maximum
| zone by distance in the UK would be Zone 4 - (Almost) All
| points within the British Isles are < 600 miles from each
| other.
| bombcar wrote:
| UPS definitely charges different rates for different
| areas (and even the USPS does somewhat once you get to
| parcels) but most companies hide this from the buyer to
| make things simple (even so far as dropping to "free
| shipping").
|
| Smaller companies often don't want to take a hit on the
| non-contiguous - but depending on what you're buying the
| places that DO charge shipping may actually be the
| cheapest overall.
|
| The fun really comes when you have places in the USA that
| the post office doesn't even deliver to (in very VERY
| rural areas, every address is actually a PO Box; you have
| to drive into town to get the mail and that can be many,
| many miles). Often UPS and FedEx will think they can
| deliver, and then determine they can't. Fun times.
| pjc50 wrote:
| This is essentially down to the mainland forgetting that
| Northern Ireland existed until Brexit forced the NI border
| issue to prominence, isn't it?
|
| The UK is to a great extent a set of special cases that have
| accreted from the feudal era. No wonder we invented
| Mornington Crescent.
|
| All of the compatibility issues and awkwardnesses that derive
| from this get glossed over as much as possible, but are
| starting to force their way to the surface as the power and
| competence vaccuum in the center loses its grip.
| mritzmann wrote:
| On the other hand, it would be confusing to have two top level
| domains for one country.
| robin_reala wrote:
| UK's not one country though. E.g. there's
| https://www.gov.uk/, but also https://www.gov.scot/ and
| https://gov.wales/.
| zeristor wrote:
| It is always a hot topic, but England's dominance can be
| noted in its absence.
|
| Wouldn't it be fair to say that the UK is synonymous with
| England in this case?
|
| Exhibit A, that I have at hand. Rainfall gauges for only
| England using the UK domain:
|
| https://check-for-flooding.service.gov.uk/rainfall-
| station/2...
| actionfromafar wrote:
| If you want to get really weird, look into City of London
| and some of the Channel Islands. UK very much retains
| living heritage of the medieval.
| jinder wrote:
| I think the independent status of the City of London is
| grossly exaggerated and not really comparable with the
| Channel Islands.
| pmyteh wrote:
| It's not particularly independent, but it _is_ the last
| of the unreformed medieval municipal corporations. In
| earlier times every borough /city corporation was
| chartered ad hoc and often had completely undemocratic
| rules for membership (e.g. selection by the outgoing
| members, maintaining a self-selected oligarchy, or
| election by an extremely restricted franchise). There was
| a process from the Municipal Corporations Act 1835[0]
| onwards where the old order was reformed into a more
| modern (more uniform and more democratic)
| county/district/borough/city councils system. We
| eventually ended up with the local authorities we have
| today.
|
| Except for the City of London. Here, a combination of the
| Victorian power of the Corporation, coupled with the tiny
| resident population of the City (and a consequent desire
| by central governments to leave elections in the
| effective hands of the companies who _employ_ people in
| the City rather than those who live there) have left a
| body allowed to take its own direction. Along with the
| Council of the Isles of Scilly (weird because Scilly is
| far too small to justify its own principal authority, but
| too far from Cornwall to be conveniently governed by it)
| it is one of only two really _sui generis_ principal
| local authorities in England.
|
| [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_Corporations
| _Act_183...
| dane-pgp wrote:
| That's a great explanation, but it's also worth adding
| that the City of London was the only city mentioned[0] in
| Magna Carta, which stated:
|
| "the City of London shall have all its ancient liberties
| by land as well as by water"
|
| These liberties being "ancient" even in 1215 AD means
| they date back to "time immemorial"[1] (that is, before
| 1189 AD) and thus their exact nature is not known. As
| such, replacing the legal basis for the City would likely
| have contravened or at least complicated the
| interpretation of that foundational document.
|
| [0] https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/things-to-do/history-
| and-her...
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_immemorial#English
| _and_Am...
| pmyteh wrote:
| Yes - the traditional liberties of the City are long-
| standing and fought for. I'm not sure that being
| mentioned by name in Magna Carta was reason enough to
| leave it unreformed. The Cinque Ports have been reduced
| to essentially ceremonial status despite their mention
| (and the large majority of Magna Carta has simply been
| repealed over the years[0] - it's not a constitutional
| document in the sense that it's ever been entrenched).
|
| [0]: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9
| dane-pgp wrote:
| > UK very much retains living heritage of the medieval.
|
| To give an example, it was only in 2008 when the island
| of Sark abolished the feudal system (the last place in
| the western world to do so).
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/dec/10/channel-
| islands
| arethuza wrote:
| Scotland only removed the last bits of feudalism in 2000
|
| https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2000/5/notes/division/
| 1/2...
|
| "Vassals will become owners and superiors will
| disappear."
| yuriko wrote:
| It used to be the case that there is only a single UK
| government. The local governments (Scotland, Wales, NI)
| are formed no more than ~20 years ago, and are in charge
| of local affairs such as healthcare and education. There
| is never an England local government, but effectively the
| UK government only have to deal with England with regards
| to local affairs.
|
| (A bit over simplified, of course)
| arethuza wrote:
| The Scottish Parliament is sometimes described as having
| been re-established in '99
|
| https://www.parliament.scot/about/history-of-the-
| scottish-pa...
| Milner08 wrote:
| No, that's not true or fair. The gov.uk contains stuff
| for all countries not just England. Although it may
| contain stuff for England that does not have a place
| elsewhere.
|
| The fact England doesn't have a devolved government is
| insanity to me, but people were really pissed at Blair
| when it came time to vote on it... so here we are.
| blibble wrote:
| those aren't classed by icann as cctlds
|
| (in the same way .vegas and .miami aren't)
| umanwizard wrote:
| > UK's not one country though.
|
| England, Scotland, Wales, and NI are called "countries" for
| historical and traditional reasons. They are not
| "countries" by any internationally applicable definition
| (if they were, then the states of the US, the provinces of
| Canada, etc. would all count as "countries" too by any such
| definition I can imagine).
| RobotToaster wrote:
| The UK is one country, it just happens to be made up of
| multiple countries.
|
| Just as the United States is a (sovereign) state, that is
| made up of multiple states.
| soneil wrote:
| The way I prefer to think of it, is the UK is a state
| comprising of several countries, and the US is a country
| comprising of several states.
|
| I can't promise it's any more accurate, but it amuses me.
| umanwizard wrote:
| What does that mean?
| RobotToaster wrote:
| There's a few that already have that, China has .cn and
| .Zhong Guo for instance.
| wmd_ wrote:
| Does this mean it is time to retire the .su TLD as well?
| weberer wrote:
| Spain has .cat for Catalonia.
| smcl wrote:
| I think the organization that administers .cat would take
| issue with the idea that it is owned by "Spain" :)
| JorgeGT wrote:
| Note that .cat is for the Catalan language, which is spoken
| in other places besides Catalonia, inside and outside of
| Spain. There is also .gal and .eus for the Galician and
| Basque (Euskara) languages as well.
| dukeofharen wrote:
| Fun fact, besides .ru (Russia), .su (Soviet Union) is also
| still active.
| cesarb wrote:
| It's not the only country with that, for instance the USA has
| both .us and .gov for its government domains.
| Already__Taken wrote:
| Just for vanities sake it'd be good but the last thing the
| world wants is news.gb
| Iwan-Zotow wrote:
| Domain should be named .kgb anyway
|
| Thus news.kgb
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-11-21 23:02 UTC)