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!
Per Wikipedia, the "United" came with Ireland, not Scotland.
> The United Kingdom has evolved from a series of annexations, unions and separations of constituent countries over several hundred years. The Treaty of Union between the Kingdom of England (which included Wales, annexed in 1542) and the Kingdom of Scotland in 1707 formed the Kingdom of Great Britain. Its union in 1801 with the Kingdom of Ireland created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Most of Ireland seceded from the UK in 1922, leaving the present United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which formally adopted that name in 1927.
Apparently, Wales was formally a part of the Kingdom of England in 1707 when the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland combined to form the Kingdom of Great Britain. The subsequent union with the Kingdom of Ireland in 1801 created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
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].
So outside of the UK people often falsely use GB, UK and England synonymously (sorry Wales). Similar to how people call the Netherlands Holland, although that is just one part.
I think at some point people should just accept that the meaning has decayed completely and GB/UK/England means the lower half of the island on the right (up to Scotland). Maybe introduce "BI" for "British Ilses"? Unfortunately, .bi is already taken as a TLD.
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".)
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.
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.
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.
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...
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Readit News
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!
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
> The United Kingdom has evolved from a series of annexations, unions and separations of constituent countries over several hundred years. The Treaty of Union between the Kingdom of England (which included Wales, annexed in 1542) and the Kingdom of Scotland in 1707 formed the Kingdom of Great Britain. Its union in 1801 with the Kingdom of Ireland created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Most of Ireland seceded from the UK in 1922, leaving the present United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which formally adopted that name in 1927.
Apparently, Wales was formally a part of the Kingdom of England in 1707 when the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland combined to form the Kingdom of Great Britain. The subsequent union with the Kingdom of Ireland in 1801 created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom
I think at some point people should just accept that the meaning has decayed completely and GB/UK/England means the lower half of the island on the right (up to Scotland). Maybe introduce "BI" for "British Ilses"? Unfortunately, .bi is already taken as a TLD.
Similarly, since last year international car plates bear UK sign, not GB as it had been for a hundred years before.
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".)
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.
Of course, those of us that don't think Northern Ireland should continue to be colonised would like GB used everywhere.
Thus news.kgb
"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...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Wales
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.
(Aside: TIL I don't think there's a US state for which I can name two cities. Edit: ah, no - Austin & Houston TX.)
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment